STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BIJENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the order of Special Judge, Narnaul appointed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 whereby he discharged the respondents under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short "Act") for having contravened the provisions of Section 6(3)(b) of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 issued and promulgated under the Act.

(2.) FACTS of the prosecution case in brief are that during the night intervening 2 and 3.3.1996 at about 12 O' Clock, accused were found carrying 21 bags of wheat from village Ganwari Jat to Rajasthan. They were apprehended in the area of village Ganwari Jat. Bijender accused is the depot holder of village Ganwari Jat. He had received said 21 bags of wheat for sale to the ration card holders. Case of the defence, on the other hand, was that the said bags of wheat did not belong to the depot of the accused. Bhagirath accused had purchased said bags of wheat on 2.3.96 from M/s Vishnu Trading Company, Nangal Chaudhary against cash memo.

(3.) NOT satisfied with the order of discharge passed on 7.10.96 by Special Judge, Narnaul under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, State of Haryana has knocked the door of this Court through this revision. In support of this revision, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the investigation conducted by an officer not empowered to investigate is not void sufficient enough to put an end to the case. Investigation conducted by an officer not empowered to investigate may put an end to the case if it is shown that the accused had suffered prejudice due to investigation of the case by an officer not empowered to investigate. To fortify his submission, he has drawn my attention to the authorities reported as Siri Ram v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) RCR 125; Durga Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973(II) Crl. Law Journal 1138 and Dr. M.C. Sulkunte v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 508.