ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal prosecution relating to Jaridih P.S. Case No. 7/85 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and pending before the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bokaro.

(2.) The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that on 9-2-1985 the Sub-Inspector attached to Jaridih P.S. found truck bearing Registration No. BHK 6591 loaded with coal. The driver disclosed the name of the petitioner to be the owner of his truck and no document regarding coal was produced, then the Sub-Inspector submitted a written report and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The Trial Judge that is Special Judge (E.C. Act), Giridih only took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and it was also observed by the learned Judge that the prosecution can file an appropriate case before the appropriate forum so far as Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.

(3.) So this case is only under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of the Unification Order that is the petitioner was found in possession of the coal without any licence. The only plea taken before me that at the relevant time that is on 9-2-85, Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 was not workable because no Nofication under Clause 3 and 18 of the Unification Order was issused by the State Government. Clause 3 indicates that every dealer has to take licence for carrying business for sale or storage of trade article but there is a proviso that no licence shall be required for a dealer who stores for sale at any one time the trade articles, in quantities not exceeding the limits as may be prescribed by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government. Similarly under Clause 18 no person shall either by himself or by any person on his behalf, store or have in his possession at any time any trade article mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II in quantity exceeding the limits. Thus, it was contended that the State Government is required to issue a notification at least under Clause 3 to indicate the storage limit beyond that licence is required and this notification was made only on 17-10-1985 that means after the alleged occurrence through which the State Government prescribed the storage limit of Coal. Thus it was contended that only after 17-10-1985 storage for coal requires licence and the case in hand is prior to 17-10-1985 when there was no such notification and as such the Unification Order was not workable. Thus, prosecution is misuse of the process of the Court. In support of this contention learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon some authorities of our own Court reported in 1994(2) Eastern India Criminal Case page 219 (Ramashish Prasad v. State of Bihar). The Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6231/92 (R) by order dated 9-8-94 also took similar view that unless there is a notification prescribing the storage limit the Unification Order is not workable.