KRISHNANAND SAO @ KRISHNA SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.9.2010 passed in Ghoshwari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 (G.R. No. 497 of 2010) by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate"). By the said order, the learned Magistrate after submission of charge-sheet has passed the order of cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "E.C. Act"). Short fact of the case is that on the written report of the Block Development Officer, Barh, an F.I.R. vide Ghoshwari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 was registered on 21.4.2010 for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner on an allegation that in residential premises of the petitioner, 354 packets of rice (weighing 161.66 quintals) and 62 packets of wheat (weighing 28.65 quintals) were recovered. It was alleged that the petitioner had stored these food-grains for the purposes of blackmarketing. Seized foodgrains were kept in machine-stitched bags, having label of Food Corporation of India and on query, the petitioner did not show any valid paper. It was further disclosed in the F.I.R. that on earlier occasion also against the petitioner under the provision contained in E.C. Act, a case was registered. After investigation and collecting materials showing involvement of the petitioner, police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, had argued that the petitioner was not a dealer and as such, he was not liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of E.C. Act. He further submits that there was no material to show that the petitioner had stored the foodgrains for blackmarketing. In support of his argument that petitioner being not a dealer was not liable to be prosecuted, Sri Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, Sri Narayan Prasad @ Sri Narain Sao & Five Others vs. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Commerce Department, Patna & Others,1998 2 PLJR 330 He submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment of this Court and as such, the order of cognizance is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is habitual offender of committing offence under the provisions of E.C. Act. He submits that prior to institution of present case, on earlier occasion also he was made accused and an F.I.R. under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was lodged against the petitioner and in the said case, charge-sheet No. 58 of 2006 was submitted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The allegation in the said case was in relation to the blackmarketing of Kerosene oil. He submits that the petitioner though was not dealer was indulged in commission of offence of blackmarketing of the foodgrains and huge quantity of bags of foodgrains, having label of Food Corporation of India, were recovered. He further submits that learned Magistrate on the basis of charge-sheet has taken cognizance and there is no error in the same. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, Arjun Paswan & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2011 3 PLJR 964