RATANLAL SULTANIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a batch of six applications filed by the petitioners against their prosecution under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The prosecution in all these cases has been started at the instance of public servants who visited the premises of the petitioners where they carried on business in various essential commodities and several irregularities were alleged to have been discovered in the maintenance of stock register etc., amounting to contravention of the conditions of the licences held by them. The reports submitted in all the cases by the public servants concerned relate to such irregularities and accordingly the Subdivisional Magistrates to whom the reports were submitted have taken cognizance of the cases started against them under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 243 of 1967, petitioner No. 1, Ratanlal Sultania, is proprietor of Shree Shyam Bhandar, Deoghar and is a wholesale dealer holding a licence under the Bihar Food -grains Dealers licensing Order, 1966, holder of another licence under the Bihar Edible Oil Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 as well as holder of a licence under the Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966. On the 1st of April, 1967, Sri P.K. Das, Assistant District Supply Officer, visited the shop premises of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 being an employee under him, along with the Inspector of Supply Department and other police officers at 6 -30 P.M. The raiding party found that the stock register was not properly maintained inasmuch as 199 bags of foodgrains were found in excess of the stock shown in the stock register, 108 tins of edible oil and one tin of Kerosene oil was also in excess of stock register. There was also a shortage of gram dal by two bags and khesan dal by one bag.

(3.) On the 3rd of April, 1967, report was made under Section 11 of the Act by Sri P.K. Das for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act to the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Deoghar. It is stated that; the entire stock of foodgrains, non -foodgrains, kerosene oil and edible oil found in the premises as also in the bank godown were seized. The Assistant District Supply Officer, however did not give any opportunity to the petitioners to explain the discrepancy and non -completion of the accounts before making report under Section 11 of the Act. It is not necessary to set out the other facts inasmuch as the main contention of the petitioners in all the cases is based upon a report for prosecution being made under Section 11 of the Act, without giving an opportunity to the dealer to explain the alleged discrepancy which might have satisfied the raiding party that what was an apparent irregularity, in fact, was not an irregularity and thus a prosecution could well have been avoided.