RAM BILAS SAH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11th October, 1980 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in G.R. Case No. 232 of 1980 taking cognizance in the case against the petitioner under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, The Sub -divisional Magistrate, Madhubani, on 12.3.1980, made a raid of the shop of the Firm M/s. Rambilas Kirana Bhandar, of which the petitioner is said to be the proprietor, and in the raid it was found that certain articles of the shop were kept on the backside of the shop, the stocks of which were noted neither in the stock or sale Register of the shop nor on the Display Board. A report was thus given at the Police Station for prosecution of the petitioner for the infringement of the orders both under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977, (wrongly mentioned as 1970) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Display Order') and the Bihar Food grains Dealers, Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Food grains Order'). On such report, a case was instituted at Madhubani Police Station. The police submitted charge sheet, and then the Chief Judicial Magistrate by his impugned order has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for infringement of both above Orders.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one point, namely, on clause 6 of the Display Order which provides that no prosecution can lie for infringement of any direction contained in this Order without the prior sanction of certain authorities mentioned in that Clause.

(3.) On behalf of the State, it has been contended in reply that the prosecution in the present case is for the infringement of both the Display Order as well as the Food grains Order, and that for the latter Order no sanction is required, and that, therefore, the prosecution can well proceed so far at least for the infringement of the Food grains Order. But this contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the present case on the same set of facts, namely, that certain items of the stock were not noted either in the Stock and Sale Register or on the Display Board, the prosecution has been started for the infringement of both the Orders, the Display Order and the Food grains Order. To permit the prosecution to continue for the Food grains Order only would mean to circumvent the provisions of the Display Order which requires prior sanction for the prosecution. This view rinds support with the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Agrawal vs. The State of Bihar in Cr. Misc. No. 951 of 1981 with Cr. Misc. No. 2129 of 1981 decided on 9th December, 1983. This has been the consistent view of this Court on principle also as long as ago in the year 1955 in the case of K. P. Sinha vs. Aftabuddin reported in : A.I.R. 1955 Pat 453.