NAND LAL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who happens to be employee of M.P. Udog Limited (Sugar Cane Mills Branch) and who have been added as an accused of Majhauli P.S. Case No.30 of 2005 registered under Section 420, 120B of the I.P.C. and 7 of the E.C. Act have filed instant petition of writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the Manjhauli P.S. Case No.301 of 2005 along with whole prosecution connected there with along with an ancillary relief coming out there from.

(2.) UMESH Kumar Bharti, Cane Officer, Bettiah filed written report in accordance with direction of the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah alleging inter alia that during cane crushing year 2005-06 cane growers of different village, namely, Parmanand Yadav, Sidheshwar Mishra, Satendra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep Kumar Giri, Anil Kumar Pandey, Manju Ram, Shekh Lal, Md. Hakim, Sunil Singh, Subodh Singh, Baidhnath Singh, Shayamakant Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Tripathi, made claim over which the District Magistrate, West Champaran had entrusted inquiry, to him. During conduction of the inquiry, he along with Assistant Yugul Kishore Prasad had gone to Barna village and inquired about measurement. During said course they have found bungling at large scale. The C.O., Majhauli had also filed his report. Again on 25.12.2005 he along with Yugul Kishore Prasad and Ali Hasan Devan had gone to different reserved village and took statement of witnesses. From their statement it is evident that there was wrong measurement of the land as well as the Chalans were being sold at rupees nine hundred to twelve hundred per hect and three hundred to four hundred for per tyre. The Mill Administration has issued receipt for three tyre a acre fixing yield at 60 quintal per quintal has against its real production to be 200 to 250 quintal. The aforesaid written report also contains different annexures. Such as statement of the witnesses, inquiry report etc.

(3.) IT has further been submitted that instant case has been registered by the person who was himself responsible for implementation of the scheme as provided under Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. Also submitted as per Section 12 of the Act there happens to be provision for appointment of Cane Commissioner while Section 13 deals with appointment of Cane Officer. Sub-sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of Section 13 happens to be the duties to be performed by the Cane Officer. It is evident from the averments of the written report that whatever irregularity has been alleged, those were to be dealt with by the Cane Officer on its own level more particularly the sub-section 5(e), sub-section 7(1) and only to shed his own fault on account of non-discharging of function allotted to him, got a false report submitted followed with institution of the instant case. Also submitted that under Chapter IV, as per Section 27 of the Act, the factory was required to furnish details of requirement for the relevant crushing year and in the aforesaid background the Cane Commissioner was required to declare particular area inconsonance thereof as reserved area in accordance with Section 31 of the Act and during said course, the objections if any, raised was to be dealt with at its level and the same was to be notified under official gazette in accordance with Section 32 of the Act. Sub-section 3 of the aforesaid Section prescribes for entering into an agreement with the cane grower while Section 33 prescribed for purchase of cane grown outside reserved area. How the survey of sugarcane areas has to be done, is duly identified under Section 34 of the Act and the same was to be carried out by an officer duly appointed by the State Government. So submitted that as per Section 34 of the Act, the survey of sugarcane area is to be carried out by the person so appointed by the State Government. None of the petitioners have been appointed by the State Government therefore the allegation levelled by the informant is nothing but an illegal action to hid his own fault. Also submitted that as per Section 46, the dispute whatever may has to be dealt with by the authorities concerned and the order happens to be appeal able one to be entertained by the Collector of the district. The aforesaid order happens to be final and is executable as a Civil Court decree in accordance with Section 47 of the Act. Then submitted that any violations thereof have been made penal and for that Section 52 takes care of. Section 53 deals with mode of institution of the case. Thus, it has been averred on behalf of petitioner in the aforesaid background that whatever irregularity has been found, that was amenable through the process of law by the authorities concerned. None of the persons who has been named in the written report have ever exercised the aforesaid procedure to get their grievances, if any, redressed although for that company was not at all responsible rather the informant himself to be. When violation of any so entrustment under Act has been made penal and the procedure has been prescribed there for, then in that event registration of Majhaulia P.S. Case No.301/2005 under Section 120B, 420 I.P.C. I.P.C. and 7 of the E.C. Act is not at all maintainable. At this juncture, much stress has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when there happens to be special law commanding and governing the issue and further, prescribing the mode of punishment then the aforesaid special law will override the general law for the area covered under special law. Therefore, institution of the case in present manner happens to be non-permissible and for that relied upon decisions reported in 2011(1) PLJR 1064, Para-92 to 95, 2006(3) PLJR 279, Para-9,10,11,15, 1997 BBCJ 553, AIR 1961 SC 1170, 2004(2) PLJR 648 Para- 4,5,6, 1982(1) SCC 561, AIR 2001 SC 2037, Para-18, 19, 23, 27, 38 and 35, 1992 (Supl) 1 SCC 335, Para-102, 2007(12) SCC 1 Para-23, 24,27,32,41,42,45 and 46, 2005(1) SCC 608 Para 27.