GANGA SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, who are Manager and Owner of a Transport Company, namely, Capital Transport, are before this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.3.2001 passed in G.R. No. 1333 of 1996, Tr. No. 498 of 2001 arising out of Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 121 of 1996.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that official of the Commercial Taxes Department intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. BRB 9015 loaded with various articles. Since the Transporter had violated certain provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, the Transport Company was imposed penalty of Rs. 77,822.16 paise. It was alleged in the written report of Commercial Taxes Officer, Investigation Bureau, Gaya Division, Gaya submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Gaya that while releasing the truck along with goods, the Transporter/petitioners were directed to ascertain and note down the name and address of the persons to whom the goods of the truck were to be released and furnish the same to the Commercial Taxes Authorities and the goods were to be released after obtaining permission from the authority concerned. It was alleged that subsequently, it was found that no goods were available at the office of the Transporter and as such it was alleged that the petitioners had committed offences under Sections 49B and 39(3-b) of the Bihar Finance Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After registering F.I.R., police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. The F.I.R. was registered on 27.6.1996 and after delay of more than three years, charge sheet was submitted on 30th December,1999 against both the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 49(3-d) of the Bihar Finance Act. At the stage of charge, petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge. The petitioners had taken a specific plea that at the time of release of the vehicle along with goods, no condition was imposed by the Transport Authority to obtain permission/consent from the Commercial Authority before releasing the goods, which were loaded over the truck. However, Shri S.P. Pandey, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya, by its order dated 22.3.2001 rejected the discharge petition and the learned Magistrate was of the view that only material was to frame charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 49 of the Finance Act was made out.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 20.12.2001, while granting time to the State for seeking instruction, this Court directed that till next date of hearing, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and on 18.7.2002, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that further proceeding in the investigation shall remain stayed.