BANSHI SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order, dated 20-3-1987 passed by the Special Judge, Hazaribagh in Gola P. S. Case No. 58 (8) 84 by which cognizance has been taken against them for the offence under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 143, 224, 225, 186 and 418 of the Indiaa Penal Code.

(2.) The Officer-in-charge Gola Police Station lodged FIR alleging therein that on 20th August, 1984 he received in information that a truck loaded with rice had arrived at Gola from Rohtas. When he reached Gola Bazar on Bokaro Ramgarh road he found truck No. BHZ 1558 loaded with rice bags. The truck was unloaded and the rice bags were being kept in the shop of Ram Kumar Agrawal, petitioner No. 2, in his presence as well as in presence of his son, Petitioner No. 3. It has been further alleged that on seeing the informant labourers fled away and when the informant wanted to inspect the shop and the rice bags, petitioner No. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, dosed the shop from inside. On demand petitioner No. 2 did not produce the licence the books of account etc. nor the price and stock display board was found and as such for violation of provision of Bihar Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order, petitioner No. 2 was arrested along with driver and khalasi of the truck. It was further alleged that the driver produced cash memo No. 2, dated 19-8-1984 issued by M/s. Jai Durga Galla Bhandar of Aatmiganj (Nasriganj), District Rohtas in the name of Banshi Sao, petitioner No. 1, of Oola in respect of 120 bags of rice dispatched through the aforesaid truck which in the opinion of the informant was not genuine as consignment was meant of Banshi Sao the same was being unloaded at the shop of Ram Kumar Agrawal without any reason. Further allegation is that on demand form XXVIII-B issued by the Sales Tax department, levy paid certificate etc. were not produced. Further case of the informant is that some other persona come there and forecibly took away petitioner No. 2 from the custody of the informant. On the aforesaid allegation, First Information Report was lodged for the offence mentioned above. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Acr is made out against the petitioners. According to the FIR petitioners are alleged to have violated the provisions of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967. This order stood repealed after coming into force of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Unification Order) with effect from 19-8-1984. Clause 32 of the Unification Order provides that from the date of commencement of this Order, the Licensing Orders mentioned in Schedule III shall stand repealed and Scheduled III contains the Bihar Foodgraios Dealers Licensing Order, 1967. Thus on the date of occurrence i. e. on 20-8-1984 the petitioners cannot be said to have violated the provisions of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order.