RAJENDRA KUMAR DAGA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated on the basis of a First Information Report alleging that the petitioner has violated the provisions of paragraph 3(1) of the West Bengal Rules, Edible Oil Seeds arid Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. The first contention of Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the First Information Report or the Charge -sheet does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. This contention is based on the provisions of the said Order which provides when a licence is to be obtained by a Dealer. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner is a general order supplier to the Government and carries on his business as such. Paragraph 3(1) of the said Order provides as follows:

(2.) It will appear from the seizure list that only trade licence, certain challans and cash memos were seized. There is no allegation that the petitioner stored any stock exceeding 10 Quintals of pulses or edible oils and nothing has been found in his possession. The case of the petitioner is that he has been supplying foodstuff to the Government as per the orders placed by it. This is also the case of the State as would appear from the First Information Report as well as the Chargesheet filed in this case. The State has not brought any fact or material either in the First Information Report or in the charge -sheet which would show that the petitioner comes within the purview of Sec. 3(1) of the said Order. No stock of any commodity was found in his possession in the place of his business which supports the contention raised by the petitioner that he is only an order supplier and not a dealer. A dealer must have at least some stock of the commodities in which he deals. We refuse to believe that at the place of business of the dealer no foodstuff at all would be available. A General Order Supplier supplies the commodities required by the concerned parties by placing order on the manufacturers or dealers in respect of the commodities required to be supplied and delivery of the said commodities are made by the manufacturers or dealers direct to the concerned parties in accordance with the specifications. There is no question of an Order Supplier having any stock of such commodities. The petitioner answers the description of an Order Supplier. As a matter of fact, he had been supplying mustard oil and other commodities to the police authorities for last several years. Even assuming that he is a dealer in pulses or edible oils, unless the stock of pulses or edible oils in his possession exceed the quantity specified in para 3(1), no licence is required to be taken. Therefore, in either view of the matter, the petitioner does not come within the purview of para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. In our view, the proceeding initiated in this case was without any jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh also contended that in view of the fact the petitioner has been carrying on his business at 16 Amritalal Bose Road, Calcutta, the Special Judge, Barasat has no jurisdiction. Sec. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to the facts of the case because the prosecution knew the particular place where from the business is carried on by the petitioner and, accordingly, the proceeding ought to have been referred to the Special Judge having jurisdiction over the place of business of the petitioner. In the view we have taken on the maintainability of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to decide this contention.