SITA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the above -named petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 as passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Begusarai in G.R. case no. 3129 of 1993 (Mufassil P.S. case no. 308 of 1993) including the order taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of processes against the petitioner.

(2.) THE present prosecution against the petitioner has been initiated for violation of provisions of - Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 for an occurrence which took place on 14th December, 1993. The only contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Fertiliser Control Order on the date of the occurrence was not applicable and workable as there was no notification of the State Government in the official gazette appointing registering authority under Clause -26 and the prescribing licence fee as required under Clause 36 of the Fertiliser Control Order. Various orders of this Court have been annexed with the petition on the ground that on this sole proposition various criminal cases for violation of the Fertiliser Control Order had been quashed making a principle that such order is not workable as no registering authority or licence fee has been prescribed as required under Clauses -26 and 36 of the Order itself and, as such, the same does not come within the purview of Unification Order for the purpose of launching prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It has been stated that in Cr. W.J.C. no. 32 of 1994 disposed of on 17th February, 1994, the Director of Agriculture admitted oefore this Court that no such notification under Clauses -26 and 36 of the Fertiliser Control Order has yet been published. But it appears from the supplementary affidavit filed that notification under Clauses 26 and 36 were printed in the official gazette on 11.8.1993 and 19.6.1986 respectively but those were never printed or published and made available to the subscribers or public in general and, as such, even there was no printing under the said Clauses the same was not being in the official gazette for publication, such printing of prescription in the above dates cannot be construed as publication in the official gazette and being in the knowledge of the public in general. Even the official authority i.e. the Director of Agriculture was also not only know of the things, no such printing of notification was sworn to that effect before this Court in the above mentioned criminal writ. In 1968 PLJR 582 in the Mahnar Notified Area Committee and anr. V/s. The State of Bihar it was observed by this Court that the notification in the official gazette cannot mean printing in the official gazette only. It must mean its publication in the sense of notifying it to be published by sending copies of it to the various subscribers or to the persons or Institutions who are entitled to get such copies or by exposing it for safe to the general public. It was further held that such printing of the notification in the official gazette and keeping the same in Almirah of the Government Printing Press or the Secretary cannot mean a notification in the official gazette as contemplated under the general Clauses Act. The same view of this Court has been ratified by the Apex Court also. Considering that view a Bench of this Court has held that such notification can be construed to have been published in the month of March, 1994 in Cr. Misc. no. 6390 of 1995 as contained in Annexure -10.

(3.) HENCE , this petition is hereby allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance in G.R. no. 3121 of 1993 before the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Begusarai is hereby quashed.