RAM BILASH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding including the first information report lodged on 20-7-1984 on the basis of which a criminal case bearing Kutumba P. S. Case No. 103 of 1984 was instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that on 20-7-1984 at about 11 A. M. the Block Agriculture Officer lodged the first information report alleging, inter alia, that while he inspected the business premises of the petitioner, he found certain discrepancies regarding stock of Urea and other fertilizers as appeared on the Display Board and the actual position found in the shop. From the first information report, it appears that on the Display Board, the stock was shown 2 bags of Urea whereas 8 bags full and 45 kgs. in a loose bag of Urea was found. Similarly there was discrepancy in Hara Bahar fertilizer and other insecticides. He also found that the stock register has not been maintained upto date and it was only written upto 16-7-1984. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the aforesaid case was registered and the police started investigation.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suop in question is a proprietory firm under the name and style of M/s. Sanjay Kumar Keetnasi Kendra at Amba and so, one Sanjay Kumar is the proprietor of the said firm. The petitioner is the father of Sanjay Kumar. It was submitted on his behalf that he has no concern with the said firm and no case at ail has been made out against him under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. It was further contended that the Block Agriculture Officer was not even competent to inspect the business premises of the son of the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has filed a notification (Annexure-2) issued by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar authorising certain officers to inspect the fertilizers premises, in which the name of Block Agriculture Officer does not appear. This contention of the petitioner was not controverted by the learned counsel for the State.