SATYA NARAYAN PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 2 is reported to be dead and hence this application is confined to petitioner no. 1 alone.

(2.) PETITIONER no. 1, Satyanarayan Poddar who at the material time was the general Manager of Hari Nagar Sugar Mills limited, Ramnagar seeks quashing of a first information report giving rise to Ramnagar rs. Case No. 81/90 for an alleged offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essentiel commodities Act. The first information report was instituted on the basis of a written report dated 17. 01. 1990 submitted to the police by the Additional Subdivision supply Officer, Bagha. According to the prosecution case the two accused commited an offence by lifting from the wholeseller all at the same time, 500 litres or' kerosene Oil against the monthly supply permit issued to them by the District Supply officer. Though there was no such restriction in the monthly supply permit but, according to the F. I. R. , the accused by liftinct the 500 litres all at once violated the storage limit of 400 litres fixed in the storage permit issued in favour of the general Manager, Hari Nagar Sugar Mills ltd. The admitted position is that the storage permit was issued for the first time in the year 1966. In the original permit the storage limit was fixed at 500 litres of kerosene Oil. The permit was renewable from year to year and it was so renewed by the petitioner. At the time of the renewal of the permit in the year 1986, the storage limit was reduced from 500 to 400 litres, that is to say, in terms of this permit the petitioner was entitled to store at any given point of time kerosene oil not in excess of 400 litres. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was issued monthly supply permits of Kerosene oil for industrial use by the District Supply Officer. It is also not in dispute that the monthly supply quota of the petitioner was 500 litres and a single supply permit for the same amount was issued by the District Supply Officer. Hence the sum and substance of the allegations is that against the supply permit of 500 litres of kerosene oil the petitioner used to lift the entire quota at one time which according to the prosecution case violated the storage limit fixed in the storage permit. Had the petitioner lifted the monthly supply of 500 litres in two or more instalments then there would have been no violation but it was their action in lifting the entire monthly supply at one time that according to the f. I. R. , constituted an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act.

(3.) ON the admitted facts I am unable to see any mens rea and it is not clear to me as to what abuse or misuse of Kerosene oil, the authorities want to check and control by taking the petitioner to the court alleging that his aforesaid action being violative of the storage limit was a punishable offence under section 7 of the E. C. Act. In a converse case where on the basis of the storage permit alone one tried to lift kerosene oil in excess of the supply permit it is understandable that he would be receiving/using Kerosene Oil more than his monthly quota as determined by the supply authorities but in such a case where the monthly quota of supply is admittedly 500 litres and it is open to the petitioner to lift that quota either all at one time or in instalments within that month, it is not comprehensible to me what purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act.