BINOD KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application the petitioner who happens to be a dealer of Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to as "the P.D.S.") as prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 67/2007 including the order dated 19.6.2007, whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act").

(2.) THE prosecution was set in motion when the Block Supply Officer, Makhdumpur submitted a written report on 2.4.2007 to the Officer In -charge inter alia stating that earlier he had received a copy of letter from Tehta O.P. addressed to the Sub -Divisional Officer alleging that 3200 litres of kerosene oil kept in 16 drums of 200 litres each in the house of Binod Kumar Rai for blackmarketing had been seized and brought to Tehta O.P. upon which on the direction of the Sub -Divisional Officer went to the village to inquire into the matter and in course thereof he made two similar recovery from other P.D.S. dealers. It was also stated that earlier directions had been issued by the S.D.O., to the effect, that kerosene oil meant for distribution were to be stored in the shop/business premises and not in the residential houses and notwithstanding the same, the accused had stored the kerosene oil in their houses and as such had become liable for offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Unification Order") was not applicable to the P.D.S. dealers in view of Clause 31(2) thereof which exempted such dealers from prosecution as they were designated to be agents of the Government. It was also submitted that no offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is made out against the petitioner as no Order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act is said to have been contravened and the prosecution of the petitioner would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) THERE appears sufficient force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A catena of decisions of this Court have ruled that dealers of P.D.S. are not amenable to prosecution in view of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Unification Order.