DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this miscellaneous application, prayer is for quashing the entire proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 6th August, 2001 for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") arising out of Gaya Kotwali P.S.Case No. 3/2001, pending in the Court of the SDJM, Sadar, Gaya.

(2.) BARE perusal of the FIR, contained in Annexure 1, shows that it has been lodged by the Supply Inspector, Sadar, Gaya as the dealer failed to produce and paper relating to purchase, paper relating to account, purchase challan etc. and also the licence in connection with the items, referred to in the FIR found in the godOwn.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that none of the said decisions is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him, as per Clause 3 of the Unification Order, no dealer can, after the commencement of this Order, carry on business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any of the trace articles mentioned in Schedule 1 except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of the said Order. He contended that it is true that under its first proviso, no licence is required for a dealer who stores for sale at any one time the trade articles, in quantities not exceeding the limits as may be prescribed by the State Government with prior Shambhu Nath Mishra Versus State Of Bihar concurrence of the Central Government for any trade article from time to time and as per 1985 notification, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the stock limit relating to pulses, edible oil -seeds and edible oil in Gaya is excluded from the storage limit but, according to him, in the present case, the question is not of storage of the edible oils exceeding the storage limit. According to him, the question is that under Clause 3 of the Unification Order, no dealer can carry on business of even purchase, sale besides storage for sale of any of the trade articles mentioned in Schedule 1 except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of the Licensing Order. It is that under its second proviso a dealer holding a valid licence of trade articles under various Licensing Orders mentioned in Schedule III was required to obtain alicence for the same trade articles under the Licensing Order up to the 15th April, 1985, i.e. the commencement of the said Order and his existing licence was deemed to be a licence issued to him as a dealer under the Unification Order up to the said date. Thus, he contended that the allegation is not with respect to storage of the edible oils referred to in the FIR, rather the allegation is that the dealer has failed to produce any paper, account, receipt, challan and even the licence in connection with his business and the store premises and thus charged him for storing and selling the edible oils without licence, which amounts to violation of the Unification Order. According to him, the 17th October, 1985 Notification, which has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act, simply fixes the stock limits of the Trade Articles under Clause 3 of the Unification Order and for that purpose the edible oils are excluded in the cities mentioned in paragraph 14 which includes Gaya and not that such dealer is not required to take licence itself under Clause 3 of the Unification Order.