SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THIS application challenges the prosecution of the petitioner in case No. 211 of 2002 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 dated 21.2.2002 instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the order of cognizance thereupon dated 14.11.2002.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution was bad -in -law, the same was based on non est ground, it was submitted that the storage limit for rice was last fixed by notification bearing No. GSR 13, dated 23.8.1990. The Central Government by its direction dated 27.10.1995 abolished stock limit of rice. This was communicated by letter dated 10.12.1999. The contention was that in view of the storage limit of rice being abolished on 27.1.1995 no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act could be said to have been committed in respect of the said commodity. The learned counsel then referred to a judgment reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 730, Smt. Kiran Bala Jain V/s. The State of Bihar, and contends that by letter dated 30.9.1994 the Central Government excluded the storage of wheat and wheat products from the purview of licence under the Essential Commodities Act. The contention therefore, was that due to abolition of stock limit of rice and wheat by the Central Government, the petitioner could not have been said to have violated the provision of clause 3 of the said order so far as rice and wheat are concerned. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution of the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 was, therefore, not sustainable. The learned counsel also submitted that the constitution of Special Courts by the High Court was contrary to Section 12 -A of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore the order of cognizance was bad on this ground also.