SAILEN GANGULY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case no.769 of 2013 arising out of Raipur Police Station Case no.103 of 2013 dated Oct. 23, 2013 and challenging the order dated Dec. 5, 2013 passed in the same case by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatra in the district of Bankura, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence under Sec. 7(I)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Sec. 59(i)of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the Block Development Officer, Raipur in the district of Bankura filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Raipur Police Station on Oct. 23, 2013, on the basis of which Raipur Police Station Case no. 103 of 2013 dated Oct. 23, 2013 under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 7(I)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Sec. 59 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 came into existence. The police investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner before the court of learned Magistrate. On Dec. 5, 2013, learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence only under Sec. 7(I)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Sec. 59 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The said order of taking cognisance by learned Magistrate is under challenge in this revision, apart from prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that learned Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by taking cognisance of the offences under Sec. 7(I)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Sec. 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He has pointed out from the order passed by learned Magistrate that learned Magistrate did not take cognisance of the offence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. By referring to the provision of Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Mr. Ganguly argues that Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be invoked only if any person contravenes any order made under Sec. 3 of the said Act. He further argues that the Investigating Officer has not disclosed in the charge-sheet which order issued under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been violated by the petitioner. By referring to the provision of Sec. 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the second schedule appended thereto, Mr. Ganguly contends that any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to food has been repealed with effect from Aug. 4, 2011, i.e., long before the commission of the alleged offence disclosed in the FIR. According to Mr. Ganguly, in the absence of violation of any order issued under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioner is not liable for any offence punishable under Sec. 7(I)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.