MADANLAL CHANDAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been filed by the two petitioners (petitioner in Cri. Misc. 58/72 and Cr. W. J. C. 67/72 being the same person) for quashing their criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "1955 Act"), for having allegedly violated the provisions of the different Control Orders framed by the Government of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 3 of the 1955 Act.

(2.) Against the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58 of 1972, e complaint was filed on the 30th November, 1971 by Shree R. N. Pandey, Assistant Marketing Officer, Sadar, Chaibassa, alleging that, when he had gone to the business premises of the petitioner, who happens to be the proprietor of Chaibassa Tyre House, he found that the petitioner had not displayed the price list and stock position in his shop and the godown, and, as such, he had contravened the provisions of the Bihar Essential Commodities (other than Foodgrains) Prices and Stocks Display Control Order, 1967 and as such was liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the 1955 Act. On the basis of the said petition of complaint, the petitioner was summoned and the case was transferred to the Court of a Munsif-Magistrate for disposal. This petitioner has also filed Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 67 of 1972 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the same relief, that is, for quashing of the aforesaid prosecution pending against him.

(3.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 2173 of 1974, a licensee under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Licensing Order'), runs a Kirana shop at Chapra. On the 19th October, 1973, at about 3.30 p. m., the Assistant Marketing Officer, along with others, went to the shop of the petitioner and seized stocks of mustard oil linseed oil and other foodgrains and submitted a report on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the petitioner and he was summoned to stand his trial under Section 7 of the 1955 Act, for haying violated the provisions of the Licensing Order. All the three applications have been heard together with the consent of the parties as a common question of law has been raised in all of them, and this judgment will govern them all.