RAJESHWAR RY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four writ applications as ordered earlier to be heard together, are being disposed herewith. In all of them the prayer is for quashing criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, including the investigation by the Police in the Police Station cases mentioned in the prayer portion of each of the applications of the following circumstances:

(2.) Be that as it may, the argument is that the notification mentioned above which is the basis for initiating the police cases is not operative, and therefore, in the absence of any other restriction, there was no embargo on the movement of salt from any part of the State of Bihar to outside its territory. The contention does not require much discussion as the legal authority of this notification has been considered at great length in the case of Hem Raj Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and others, 1980 B.R.L.J. 170 when it was firmly laid down that the notification issued under the 1954 Act not having been kept alive till the 1955 Act was enacted, it lost its force. In that view of the matter it is apparent that the Inspector of Police lodged the first information reports under misconception of law.

(3.) When the cases were taken up earlier for hearing on 17-11-1980, on the request of the State counsel-that the investigation will be completed within a few days and so it would be desirable to hear this case only after the investigation was completed, and final form likely to be submitted within a month and half, the Bench, adjourned the cases for six weeks. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad who had given that undertaking and assurance to the Court even today made somewhat similar statements although more than three months have lapsed. He is not in a position even to tell us as to whether any action has been taken on his request or that any of the respondents has made any response to his communication. At one stage he suggested that this Court should get the information s obtained by sending a special messenger as its own cost as the State is not in a position to meet the cost. We must observe that in view of the undertaking given by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad it was proper for him to have obtained all necessary informations and told the Court of the actual state of affairs. We, therefore, do not feel inclined to waste any further time over matter and grant any further indulgence in a case where the very foundation of the alleged offence has been declared to be baseless by this Court. The State counsel, however, has brought to our notice the case of State of Bihar and another v. J.A.C., Saldanna and others, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 236, and although he conceded that if the case against the petitioners was only on the basis of the aforesaid notification then certainly he could not make any arguments in defence, but at the same time on the basis of the above authority he faintly contended that this Court should exercise such powers in very exceptional cases. The proposition as such cannot be disputed but on the facts of this case if the Police investigation or for that matter the original proceedings are quashed then it does not amount to interference with the police investigation as such for that simple reason that the Police has got no case for investigation on the facts alleged. The allegations do not constitute any offence in the eye of law. Had the allegations made out any case then the matter would have stood on a different footing.