PANNA LAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by this application have prayed for quashing the entire prosecution vide trial No. 96 of 1983 initiated on the prosecution report dated 20-4-1979 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provision of Clause 9 of Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966.

(2.) There is mill called Hari Nagar Sugar Mill Ltd. at Ram Nagar, West Champaran. The cane officer of Ram Nagar Circle filed a complaint dated 20-4-1979 against the petitioners alleging that inspite of direction Hari Nagar Sugar Mill could not submit return etc., which is in contravention of Clause 9 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essantial Commodities Act and the petition of the petitioners to discharge was also dismissed vide order dated 5-12-1983.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of the sugar mills and there is no allegation in the complaint petition, which can be taken as making out a case against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint petition there is no mention at all that the petitioners were, at the same of contravention, incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as well as there is no allegation that the offence was committed with the consent o r connivance of these petitioners and accordingly submitted that the cognizance as well as entire proceeding is illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in Sri Ram Dalmia v. The State, AIR 1961 Patna 361, Ram Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, 1986 BBCJ 327, Sham Sunder and others v. State of Haryana and AIR 1989 SC 1982=1990(1) BLJ 593 (SC) in which it has been held that the prosecution has to establish the requisite condition as mentioned in Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act that during the relevant time the accused persons were incharge of the business or the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of the accused persons.