VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached. This Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the charge framed against the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal, vide his order dated 5th March, 1977. The petitioners were alleged to have been issued many hags of sugar which, according to the prosecution allegations ever not distributed by the and thus they made themselves liable for punishment under the provisions of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding Order, 1973. The framing of the charge has been questioned on more than one ground. It has been pleaded that the case has been put in the Court against them after a period of one year from the date of commission of the offence On the other hand, according to the prosecution, the committal of the offence came to the knowledge of the police officers on 29th August, 1977, when the first information report was lodged and thus the limitation will start from that date. The challan was presented on 21st July, 1978. In view of the above stand taken by the (sic) it is difficult for me to quash the charge on the ground of limitation. However, if the accused challenges the case of the prosecution that the knowledge was earlier to 29th August, 1977, they may do so when the evidence is led and if they are able to make out a case, it will be open to them to put forth the plea of limitation at the time of final arguments.

(2.) THE other ground taker in the petitioner is that the charge could either have been framed under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding Order, 1973, read with the Defence of India Rules, and thus the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate har gone wrong in framing the charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1952, for violating the provisions of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding Order 1973. This ground appears to have merit The learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded that either the charge should have been framed for the violation of Haryana Prevention of Hoarding Order, 1973 read with Defence of India Rules, or the learned Magistrate could have applied his mind to have framed an independent charge under the Essential Commodities Act. On this concession having been made, I quash the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, dated the 5th March, 1979 and direct that he should proceed to frame a fresh charge in accordance with law after hearing the parties. This petition is disposed of accordingly The parties are directed, through their counsel, to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, on 3rd September.