RAM CHANDRA PAN SARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner and others which arises out of Laukaha (Khutauna) P. S. Ca-se No. 0093, dated 21-10-1984 (G. R. Case No. 691/84) instituted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short Tthe ActT). This case is pending trial before the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Madhubani. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is one of the partners of M/s. Pan sari Auto Service, a petrol and diesel oil dealer. It is said that on 20th October, 1984, a truck belonging to, Kosi Canal Project having its registration No. BRX 8856 came to the petrol pump and purchased diesel under cash memo Nos. 316,317 and 318 dated 20th October, 1984, for 400 litres, 200 litres and 400 litres respectively. It is slid that the driver got the drums containing the diesel loaded on the truck and went away. On the following day, i.e. 21-10-1984, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Khutauna, found the truck bearing registration No. BRX 8856 unloading certain drums of diesel and mobil oil in the premises of the Middle School. Out of the three persons, who was engaged in unloading the truck, two managed to escape but the third Jugti Thakur was arrested, who claimed part of the diesel as his own. First information report was, subsequently lodged at Laukaha police station on the basis of which investigation started and the petitioner was arrested on 22-6-1985. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 20-7-1985 and cognizance was taken on 16-8-1986. The petitioner, along with others, is now facing trial before the Special Judge (B.C. Act), Madhubani.

(2.) Mr. Bharuka appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a very interesting question. He did not dispute that the offence alleged provides a maximum sentence of 7 years under section 7 of the Act, but learned counsel contended that under proviso to clause (f) to section 12. AA of the Act, it will be lawful for the Special Judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. He, therefore, contended that the case becomes a summons case and since the investigation continued beyond six months from 21-10-1986 (when Jugti Thakur, the accused was arrested) without satisfying the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond six months was necessary, the same became illegal Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that any action taken on the basis of this illegal investigation should be quashed. As I have said above, the argument is quite interesting and Mr. Bharuka tried to bring through his point of view with great skill and persuasive advocacy. In order to appreciate the argument, it will be proper to refer to certain provisions of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage itself.

(3.) Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act provides as follows: Penalties.- (1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3- (a) he shall be punishable (i) (ii) in the case of other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; (b) (c) . TI Act 18 of 1981 came into force on 1-9-1982 and section 12-AA of the Act was inserted in the Act for a period of five years. After the expiry of 5 years, this section has been continued for another five years. According to clause (a) to this section, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, all offences under the Act are triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. Clause (f) to this section provides that all offences under the Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial. Subsection (2) to section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in case of any conviction in a summary trial. This provision, however, has been excluded so far as summary trial of an offence under the Act is concerned by inserting a proviso to clause (f) to section 12-AA of the Act where it has been said Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Summons case has been defined under section 2(w) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as meaning a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case. Section 2(x) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines warrant case as a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.T Therefore, a case relating to an offence which is punishable for a term not exceeding two years is a summons-case.