MOHAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Entire criminal proceedings before the Special Judge, E.C. Act. Hazaribagh, in Markacho P.S. Case No. 41 of 1990 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (the Act) for the violation of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (the Unification Order) is sought to be quashed in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code).

(2.) On 1-9-1990 Mr. M.Singh. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police intercepted two public carrier trucks bearing registration Nos. BPL 6261 and BPI 6252 loaded with coal. On demand the driver produced invoices issued from the Eastern Coalfields Limited. Chitra. in favour of Dasrath Chaudhary of Kararnnasa and RS. Choudhary of Kajuna Bazar. For verification of the documents, the trucks were detained. On verification it was alleged that no person by name Dasrath Choudhary and R.S. Choudhary were residing at the respective places at Karamnasa and Kajuna Bazar and as such it was suspected that the accused persons including the owners of the trucks were carrying coal in conspiracy with other persons to sell in black market in violation of the provision of the Unification Order. Out of the same incident, two cases were registered one being Markacho P.S. Case No. 41 of 1990 under Section 7 of the Act while the other being Markacho P.S. Case No. 42 of 1990 under Sections 410/420/467/471/474 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of Markacho P.S. Case No. 42 of 1990, G.R. Case No. 544 of 1990 was registered in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma and the same was tried by the Magistrate concerned under T.R. No. 135 of 1994. The present petitioners alongwith others were the accused persons in that case and all were acquitted of the charges as the prosecution side failed to bring any iota of evidence against the accused persons. Regarding the present case registered under Section 7 of the Act, it is the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of the Unification Order are not applicable or workable on trade articles namely coal. During the relevant period, the State Government had made a notification regarding storage limit of coal but in that notification no separate storage limit was mentioned regarding the retail dealers and the wholesale dealers and as such when dealer was being mentioned in the notification it was held by a Division Bench of the Court in Sidheshwar Pandey and others v. State of Bihar and others, that unless storage limit for a wholesale dealer and retail dealer is fixed the Unification Order and violation of it will not be workable in relation to coal. In several cases after wards relying on the said decision of the Division Bench namely. Cr1: Misc. No. 4824 of 1988 and Cr1. Misc. No. 9919 of 1990 had been allowed quashing the criminal proceedings holding that the Unification Order is not workable in respect of the coal. Thus on this point the petitioners have got a good case.

(3.) The next point has been urged to the effect that the coal was intercepted at the stage of transportation. Nowhere it has been stated either in the complaint or in any other papers or documents to show that the petitioners being the owners of the trucks were in anyway dealing with the coal. So the question of storage limit regarding coal vis-a-vis violation of the Unification Order is not applicable against the petitioners. The trucks in question were the public carriers. According to the petitioners, those have been given in the charge of the drivers for the purpose of public carriage and when the trucks being the public carrier were engaged by some person for the purpose of transportation of coal from one place to another the petitioners who were not in anyway connected with the transportation of the coal cannot be made liable along with others connected with the coal. It has further been submitted that when interception is made at the stage of transportation then the storing of goods or the trade articles under the Unification Order cannot be there. Carrying of goods in vehicle that too public carrier per se be considered as storage only because the trade articles were found to be moving in trucks in excess of quantity permitted to be stored, it would not amount to storing of goods. Recently it has been held by the Supreme Court in Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa. Thus on this point also, the petitioners have a good case.