D P PANDYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-5-93 passed in Govindpur (Barbadda) P. S. Case No. 246/90 (G. R. 2612/90) by reason of which the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) (shortly 'E. C. Act') has refused to discharge the petitioner, he has moved this court in the present application for quashing the entire criminal prosecution against him including the order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the E. C. Act.

(2.) Mr. P. D. Agfawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with his usual industrial precession, has tried to assail the impugned order by formulating the following points : (i) on the alleged date of occurrence there was no storage limit in respect of rice and, as such, the Unification Order is not applicable ; (ii) there being no storage limit, a person cannot be prosecuted for violation of any provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order).

(3.) In order to appreciate the points raised, a potray of factual background is necessary : The Supply Inspector made a written report alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had received some quantity of rice in between 7-8-1990 to 17-8-1990 and distributed the same from the railway goods shed to different dealers. The petitioner, though was required to have a licence under the Unification Order, was carrying business in rice without any such licence and, as such, was liable to be punished under Section 7 of the E. C. Act.