K NAGABHUSAN SENAPATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner prays for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') to quash proceedings in 2(c) C.C. No. 4 of 1991 pending before the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge Ganjam, Berhampur (in short, 'the Special Judge'). According to the petitioner framing of charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') and continuance of the proceedings would be sheer abuse of process of Court.

(2.) Foundation of such submission appears to be that in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act it has been observed that articles seized did not belong to the petitioner, but belonged to some other persons who lodged claim and there has been a direction for release of articles in their favour in a writ application.

(3.) According to Mr. Y. Das, learned counsel for petitioner there can be no dispute that proceedings under Sections 6-A and 7 of the Act can co-exist and even where Collector did not direct confiscation of the articles, accused can be convicted under Section 7-A of the Act, and jurisdiction of the Special Judge and the Collector are conceptually and materially different. What has been emphasised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that in view of specific finding recorded that articles did not belong to petitioner at the relevant point of time and articles having been returned to some other persons, continuance of the proceedings would be against interest of justice and would been exercise of futile. An application was filed before the learned Special Judge not to proceed with the matter and not to frame charge primarily with similar prayer, and that has been turned down. Learned counsel for the State supported the order.