RADHA MOHAN TIBREWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing an order of cognizance dated the 29th September, 1974, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, which is now pending for trial under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act in the court of Sri R.M. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhagalpur, for contravention of the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yard Control Order, 1956, inasmuch as the petitioners were carrying on business without a licence on the 18th September, 1974, when the business premises of the petitioners was raided by the Supply Inspector. A copy of the complaint petition filed against the petitioners has been marked as Annexure T to this application on the basis of which cognizance has been taken.

(2.) Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners has contended that they filed application for renewal of the licence on the 8th August, 1974. A copy of the challan for the purpose has been filed as annexure 5. It is submitted that no order of refusal of the renewal of the licence under the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order was conveyed to the petitioners and as such they could not be held to be dealing in cloth without a licence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the fact that the petitioners had a licence upto 1973 is implicit on the complaint itself filed against the petitioners. In case the petitioners have validly made an application for renewal of the licence with the requisite licence fee for 1974 and had a valid licence for the year 1973 and there has been no communication of the order of refusal of the renewal of the licence then prima facie it appears that the petitioner was not liable for prosecution in doing business without a licence. In the circumstances I direct the learned magistrate before whom the case is pending to investigate this question, if raised by the petitioners, as a preliminary issue and in case he finds that the petitioners' assertion is correct to discharge the petitioners otherwise to proceed with the trial.

(3.) The petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation.