NAKUL CHANDRA BANERJEE, Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this application under Sec. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding pending in G.R. Case no. 434 of 1969 before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Godda, Petitioners 2 and 3 are driver and cleaner respectively of a motor truck bearing no. B.R.W. 7105 and petitioner no. 1 is an employee of a firm M/s Sheoshanker Rice Mills of Deoghar. It appears that on the 7th December, 1969, a first information was drawn up at Godda Police Station on the basis of a sanaha alleging, inter alia, therein that on the 6th December, 1969, the said truck was carrying paddy from Godda to Deoghar for M/S Sheoshanker Rice Mills without informing the authorities and obtaining their permission for transport of the paddy. It is not in dispute that permission was accorded to the truck to carry paddy once from Godda to Deoghar, but, according to the allegations in the first information report, that permission was being misused for making several trips. The police has not completed investigations as yet. G.R. Case no. 434 of 1969 in the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Godda, has been registered merely on receipt of a copy of the first information report. Though the prayer in the application was for quashing the proceeding in the said case, at the time of arguments, it has been submitted that the investigations pending before the police be quashed. If on merits, it is found that it is a fit case for quashing the investigation, in my opinion, the application of the petitioners ought not to fail on the technical ground that no specific prayer for quashing the investigation has been made in it.

(2.) Mr. H.L. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that it is a fit case for quashing the investigation inasmuch as even if the allegations in the first information report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out any offence. According to the prosecution, the petitioners have committed an offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Sec. 7 of the Act lays down that any person contravening any order made under Sec. 3 of the Act can be punished. Learned counsel, appearing for the State, was not able to produce before me any order purported to have been passed under Sec. 3 of the Act banning movement of rice from one subdivision to the other subdivision of the same district without informing the authorities and obtaining their permission. He has, however, relied on a D.O. letter of the Food Commissioner, Bihar, dated the 14th December, 1967, which shows that before taking food grains from a block, sub -division or district to another place, for which permit was not required, information should be given to the authorities concerned and permission obtained from them for the purpose. This letter has been made Annexure 1 to the petition itself. It is nowhere stated in this letter that it was being issued as an order under Sec. 3 of the Act. Really it was a D.O. letter for giving facilities to the businessmen and by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an order under Sec. 3 of the Act. No one can be punished under Sec. 7 of the Act for contravention of this letter. In the circumstances, it is manifest that the allegations in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State has then submitted that this Court cannot and ought not quash an investigation pending before the police. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) State of West Bengal V. S.N. Basak ( : A.I.R. 1963 SC 447). It was observed in this case - -