SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Shivnath G.P.I, for the respondents.

(2.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing a criminal prosecution arising out Ghatshila Police Station Case No. 161 of 1993, dated 21 12 1993 instituted under Sections 419 and 420, Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also for release of 600 tins of Sunflower Refined Oil which has been seized in relation to the said case.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed documents as annexrues to show that the goods seized are Sunflower Refined Oil. No doubt Sunflower is an edible oil but the provision of the Unification Order does not apply to such oil because it is not one of the trade articles for the purpose of the said Order as would be evidence from the definition contained in Clause (2)(t) read with Schedule I, Part 'D' of the Unification Order. Beyond this Order there is no other Order made under the Essential Commodities Act or under any other existing law which in any way regulates the sale, purchase or movement of any edible oil. No doubt there is a Central Order putting the restriction on the storage of edible oils but in the present case we are not concerned with that. Apart from the aforesaid considerations, now from the report of the District Supply Officer who to supposed to be aware of all relevant laws relating to control of essential commodities, has clearly opined and reported to the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure '5' that the petitioner has not contravened any Order made under the Essential Commodities Act. In this view of the matter prima facie we are satisfied that the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 lacks, bona fide and the matter needs to be enquired into by the competent higher authorities to check such unwarranted tendencies in police cadres.