MADAN PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 23.6.1982 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the State to withdraw the prosecution pending against the petitioner. An alternative prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to quash the order dated 9.4.82 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the petition of complaint and summoning the petitioner to stand trial for an offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) A copy of the said order is Annexure '2' to the present application. The Assistant Marketing Officer, filed a petition of complaint before the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, alleging therein that on 5.4.82 at about 8 in the morning he went to the business premises of the petitioner to verify the stock of Coal. The petitioner is a dealer in Coal and carries on the business under the licence granted in accordance with the Bihar Coal Control Older, 1956. The complainant has stated that he started the verification at 8.30 in the morning and it was concluded at 6 in the evening. He has further stated that for the purpose of verifying the total, he got one Basket Coal weighed which came to 40 K.G.s and, thereafter the total stock of Coal of the petitioner was calculated with reference to number of Baskets. Calculating 40 K.G.s per Basket, the total stock was found to be 448 Quintals and 80 Kilograms. It has been mentioned in the petition of complaint that according to the stock register, there should have been 420 Quintals and 80 Kilograms of Coal.

(2.) On the basis of the said petition of complaint, the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioner by his order dated 9.4.1982as already stated above. During the pendency of the case petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Saharsa, making a grievance about the manner in which the total stock of Coal of the petitioner was weighed on the date of inspection. The District Magistrate called for a report from Superintendent of Police and ultimately being satisfied that the total stock of the Coal was not properly weighed, he passed an order on 10.6.82 directing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution which was pending against the petitioner. A copy of the different orders passed by the District Magistrate, Saharsa has been annexed and marked as Annexure '3'. A copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police has also been annexed and marked Annexure '4'. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal dated 16.6.82, a copy whereof is annexure '5'. The learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, however by the impugned order dated 23.6.82 has rejected the said prayer as already stated above.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that when the District Magistrate had directed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution pending against the petitioner, the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate should have allowed the same. The power of the court to allow withdrawal of case has been examined by the Supreme Court on several occasions and it has been consistently pointed out that a criminal court should not allow the withdrawal of a case in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. We may point out that Sri B.N.P. Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has taken pains to consider the different aspects of the case, while rejecting prayer for withdrawal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said order which has been passed consistent with the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court.