GAUTAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for offences under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be the proprietor of a firm of wholesale dealers in foodgrains and licensed as such. On the 16th of July, 1975 an Executive Magistrate is said to have searched the shop of the firm in the presence of the petitioner. He found that the board displayed in the firm indicated the stock of foodgrains, but not their prices. On enquiry, the petitioner told him that the business was closed as his daughter was to be married on that very day. Secondly, the Magistrate found that purchases of foodgrains had not been made for certain periods. It appeared from the stock register that purchases of rice had not been made from 27th June to 4th July, 1975 and from 7th July to 16th July 1975. Similarly, purchases of wheat had not been made from 26th June to 9th July, 1975 and from 11th July to 16th July, 1975. The Magistrate made a written report to the Sub-divisional Officer, Bihar Sharif. On that basis, the Additional District Supply Officer filed a complaint under the order and sanction of the Sub divisional Officer saying that from the facts aforesaid it would be apparent that the dealer

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, firstly that the shop being closed for business on the date of the search, no offence has been committed in respect of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order 1975 (hereinafter called 'Display Order') and, secondly, that the complaint petition does not disclose any offence, even though the facts be accepted in their entirety.