CHIRANJIV SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cri. Misc. No. 1662/92 (R) and Cr. Misc. No. 3225/95(R) were taken up together as both these applications -have been preferred for quashing the entire criminal prosecution relates to Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 142 of 1988 that is Cr. Case No. 88/83 pending in the court of Special Judge E.C. Act. Singhbhum West at Chaibasa and this common order will dispose of both these applications.

(2.) In Cr. Misc. No. 1662/92 (R) Chiranjiv Singh and Jarnail Singh who are full brothers are petitioners whereas in Cr. Misc. No. 3225/92 (R) Md. Ismail is the petitioner. The fact in short for the purpose of these applications are that on 23-12-1988 the informant Supply Inspector, Madhusudan Das along with Sri B.N. Das, L.R.D.C. and a Marketing Officer searched the house of petitioner Chiranjiv Singh situates in village Dhaigara within Ghatshila P.S. and found 200 bags of cement and on demand Chiranjiv Singh had not produced any paper to show as to how cement bags were obtained. It was further found that Chiranjiv Singh and his brother Jarnail Singh were constructing a market complex by the side of their house and the cement was obtained illegally for construction for this complex. Accordingly a written report was submitted to Officer-in-charge, Ghatshila P.S. and the Officer-in-charge, Ghatshila P.S. submitted charge-sheet under Section 7 of the E.C. Act as against all these petitioners and some others.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of petitioners that from the F.I.R. itself it is clear that the petitioners kept the cement in his house for construction of the market complex and actually there is no allegation that the cement were stored for sale and as such the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order (to be called hereinafter only Unification Order) is not maintainable. It was next contended that a licence is necessary under the Unification Order provided any person is a dealer as defined in Sections 2(p) and 2(u) of the Act and the dealer means a person engaged in business or purchase, sale or storage for any trade article. In the instant case absolutely there is no allegation that the cement was stored by the petitioners for purchase, sale or for storage in connection with purchase or sale and if the cements were stored according to the F.I.R. for their own use in construction work then question of taking out any licence under the Unification Order or violation of any of provisions of Unification Order is not attracted. Admittedly from the F.I.R. it can be said that the cements were stored not for sale or in connection with any business rather stored for own use in connection with the construction work. If at all any trade article is stored for own use and not for sale and purchase or stored for sale or purchase then there is no violation of the Unification Order in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court that is C.W.J.C. No. 365/94(R) and Cr. W.J.C. No. 60/90 (R) and a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2176. So in view of the decisions of this Court if there is storage of 200 bags of cement for own construction work and not for sale or purchase then there is no violation of Unification Order and the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is definitely bad in law.