TULSIDAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda refusing to drop charges under Ss.7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act ('Act' for short).

(2.) The prosecution case shortly stated is that petitioner 1, father of petitioner 2 (both accused) was the licensed wholesale dealer for kerosene authorised to carry on business at Malgodown, Cuttack. On 27-11-1978 he effected a fictitious transaction of sale of 8500 litres of kerosene to a non-existent person named, Bairagi Charan Sahu of village Kalapathar in Banki Sub-Division of Cuttack district describing him as a retail dealer of kerosene. As a matter of fact, he transported the stock of kerosene by a tanker lorry to Nirakarpur in Khurda sub-division of Puri District and unauthorisedly sold the same to a retail dealer of kerosene of Puri district named, Siyaram Agarwala (accused). When accused Siyaram Agarwala was confronted by the Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Khurda who had lodged the first information report, he could not produce valid documents for purchase of a huge stock of kerosene. On the aforesaid allegations, after the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, accused Siyaram Agarwala, driver of the tanker lorry accused Pramod Kumar Swain and another employee accused Rama Chandra Jena.

(3.) On 7-9-1983 the lower Court framed charges against all the accused persons under Ss. 7 and 10 of the Act. On 12-1-1984 and 23-2-1984 the petitioners made two applications before the lower Court praying for dropping of the case against them on the grounds that taking of cognizance of the offences against them was barred by limitation under the provisions of S.468, Cri P.C. ('Code' for short). By application of the provisions of S.12-A(2) of the Act the alleged offences were to be tried summarily by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in that behalf by the State Government. M/s. Tulsidas Modi being a proprietorship firm, S.10 of the Act was not applicable. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate negatived all the contentions.