SATRUGHAN SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.2.1999 passed by Special Judge, Banka in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998. By the said order, learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against accused persons including the Petitioner.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 4.1.1998, the Block Development Officer, Amarpur jointly with Officer-in-Charge, Amarpur Police Station intercepted a truck loaded with 110 bags of Tisi (Edible Oil Seed). On weighment, it was found that the Tisi was 110.10 quintal. On demand, certain papers were produced by the driver and it transpired that papers were issued by one Abinash Bhandar in favour of R.K. Industries, Calcutta. The Block Development Officer suspected the documents as forged and thereafter, came to the conclusion that owner of Abinash Bhandar in collusion with transport owner i.e. Petitioner was indulged in black marketing of Tisi. On the basis of written report of the Block Development Officer, Amarpur, an F.I.F. vide Amarpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998 for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge, by its order dated 15.2.1999, took cognizance of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 2.9.1999. While admitting, notice was directed to be issued to opposite party No. 2 i.e. Block Development Officer, Amarpur and it was further directed that further proceeding as regards the Petitioner in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998 in the court below shall remain stayed, during the pendency of this application. Despite service of notice, the opposite party No. 2 did not file any reply and finally the petition was heard.