RAM CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Mrigank Mauli, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner who is a dealer under the Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to as "the P.D.S.") is aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, in Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2005 registered under Sections 409, 420,467 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act") and has prayed for quashing of the same, whereby cognizance has been taken only under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for contravention of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as "the Unification Order"). According to the prosecution case as made out from the written report submitted by the Supply Inspector, Akbarpur, on inquiry from the various cardholders and on verification of the cards of about 30 of the Yellow cardholders, it was found that the petitioner had been irregular in supply of controlled items like rice, wheat and kerosene oil. It has also been alleged that even the holders of the general cards had complained about the irregular supply. Accordingly, it was alleged that the petitioner had indulged in blackmarketing of articles supplied to him and a prayer was made to take action for contravention of Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

(3.) IT has been submitted that although the prayer was made for taking action only under the provisions of the E.C. Act yet the police had registered the case also under several provisions of the Penal Code notwithstanding the fact that no penal offence was made out from the averments made therein and rightly a charge -sheet had been submitted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been working under the license without any complaint whatsoever for more than 20 years and has been falsely implicated more so when there is nothing in the F.I.R. that makes out a case against the petitioner.