RADHE SHYAM CHAPARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire criminal proceeding against the abovenamed two petitioners who were accused in G. R, Case No. 1360/80, T. R. No. 1241 of 1984 arisen out of Giridih (T) PS Case No 22 (9)-80 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act pending before the Subdivision Judicial Magistrate, Giridih have been challenged on the legal grounds, to the effect that criminal prosecution against the petitioners under the said Section of law is not maintainable.

(2.) According to the petitioners, Bimal Mica Mines, a proprietorship firm dealing in mill business belongs to the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 being the brother of petitioner No. 2 has no concern with the business run by the petitioner No. 2. The other accued in the case, namely, M/s.Khetan Distributors and its owner Shri Arjun Lal Khetan is a stockist of Cement within the meaning of Bihar Cement Control Order, 1972 having his proprietorship firm situated at Asharganj Munger. According to the petitioners, M/s. Khetan Distributors received 500 bags of cement from Sone Valley Portland Cement Company Ltd. Japla, Palamau and was transporting the same to Asharganj on 2-9-1980, but on the way near Pachamb town within the district of Giridih, the truck carrying cement had gone out of order and it was necessitated for the repair of the truck to unload the Cement from the same and petitioners being the relation of Shri Arjun Lal Khetan on request, in the godown of petitioner No. 2 those 500 bags were unloaded and kept aiongwith Mica bags belonging to the petitioner No. 2. But, a raid was conducted by the Sub-Inspector, C. I. D. (Food) on 20-9-1980 and 579 bags were seized and filed an F. I. R. on which the prosecution was launched against the petitioners aiongwith M/s. Khetan Distributors and its owner, Arjun Lal Khetan aiongwith others.

(3.) The allegation brought against the present petitioners is that they had kept and stored 579 bags of Cement without authority for the purposes of biackmarketing. Against Arjun Lal Khetan and his firm, charge was for storage of 500 bags of Cement at the premises of the petitioners without being Stockist having no proper licence. Charges were also framed accordingly. According to the petitioners, only 500 bags of Cement were there as per the seizure list and the others 79 bags were having sica dust and not the cement.