URMILA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire Criminal Proceeding of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 36 of 1991 including the order taking cognizance dated 9-5-1995 under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under S. 414/1208 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application is that the Officer-in-charge Lower Bazar submitted a written report claiming therein that he inspected two trucks loaded with coal bearing registration No. BPN 9993 and BRO 5166. On demand of the papers, the driver produced papers in relation of coal as alleged. The chalans for the said coal were also produced and from perusal of the chalans, it was detected that no date has been mentioned below the signature and seal of the officer issuing the coal whereas the date was given found under the signature of the officer and representative of the consignee. It was further found that the column No. 5 were cutting with ink but without any initial and the signature of the coal issuing authority was illegible with seal of sales officers. Both the trucks were seized and a case under S. 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the accused persons including the petitioner. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and the learned Special Judge, Ranchi took cognizance by his order dated 9-5-1995.

(3.) That the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the lady is owner of the truck bearing registration No. BIB 9993 and the said truck always remains under the control and possession of the driver who contacts various customers of the coal. It is further argued that there is no report of theft of coal and the said coal was purchased validly having chalans for the same and the police seized the said trucks on flimsy grounds as well as no offence under S. 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further argued that all the documents/chalans were found to be genuine and only because of the fact that there was no initial or signature below the seal will not suffice for violation of S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Actas it does not violate any of the Control Orders. It is further argued that in the Unification Order, the storage limit of coal has not been fixed either in relation to wholesale dealer or in relation to retail dealer. It has simply been stated that clause 13 of the Notification that Coal dealer means a person who at any time holds stock of coal in a quantity exceeding 10 quintals. It has no- where been stated in the notification as to what is the storage limit of wholesale dealer and a retail dealer. Unless storage limit for a wholesale dealer and a retail dealer is fixed, the Unification Order will not be workable. It has further been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the coal was intercepted at the stage of transportation but nowhere it has been mentioned either in the complaint petition or in any other paper or documents to show that the petitioner being the owner of the truck was in anywhere dealing with the coal in black marketing. The trucks in question were public carriers and according to the petitioner, the truck was given in the charge of the drivers for the purposes of transportation of the goods. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the case of Bijaya Kumar Agarwal v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1996 SC 2531 : (1996 Cri LJ 3577). It has been held by the Apex Court that carrying of goods by vehicle that too public carrier per se be considered as storage only because the Trade articles were found to be moving in trucks in excess of quantity permitted to be stored, it would not amount to storing of goods. Learned counsel further relied on the case of Mohan Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1998 (1) EFR 305. It was held by a Division Bench of this C ourt in C.W.J.C. No. 6231 of 1994 that unless storage limit for a wholesale dealer and retail dealer is fixed, the Unification Order and violation of it, will not be workable in relation to coal.