STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PURSHOTAM LAL KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 27-11-1990 passed by the Special Judge, (E.C. Act), stopping the proceeding against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of her power under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application are as under : On 2-2-1984, a first information report was lodged by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ranchi before the Officer-in-Charge Kotwali Police Station Ranchi, stating therein, inter alia, that the godown situated in Upper-Bazar in the town of Ranchi allegedly belonging to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 was inspected and many of the irregularities were found including that of violation of display order, non-maintenance of registers and carrying on business in a godown not incorporated in the licence of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 for dealing in wholesale business of edible oil, Banaspati and Sugar.

(3.) Accordingly, a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was instituted against Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and the police after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Consequently thereof, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Ranchi on 11-6-1990. During the pendency of the case, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the learned Special Judge, Ranchi for stoppage of the proceeding against them under Section 7 of the Act. The petition aforesaid was taken up for hearing on 15-11-1990 and the matter was heard at length in presence of the parties and by the order impugned dated on 27-11-1990, the learned Special Judge (E.G. Act) stopped the proceeding against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of its power under Section 258 of the Code. It appears from the order-impugned that the proceeding was stopped on the grounds (I) that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code (II) the firm was not made an accused in the first information report and (III) the District Panchayat Raj Officer was not the competent officer to lodge the first information report against Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 7 of the Act.