RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 24th July, 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, taking cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2003. Block Supply Officer, Tankuppa lodged FIR on 2nd June, 2006 alleging therein that Circle Officer, Town Circle, submitted inquiry report dated 25th/26th April, 2003 in which irregularity in the distribution of foodgrains under Antyodaya Scheme was found for the purpose of blackmarketing and the documents relating to the shops were not produced before the inquiry officer. He, therefore, prayed for institution a case against five shopkeepers of Public Distribution System including the petitioner who has got licence No. 46/85 at Village & P.O. Metaura, Dis -trict -Gaya. Accordingly, the present case has been instituted under section 7 of the E.C. Act against five shopkeepers including the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a dealer of Public Distribution System having licence No. 46/85. He submits that the petitioner distributed foodgrains allotted to him and also maintained regular books of account. He submits that petitioner was not present at the time inspection and hence books of account were not produced before the inquiry officer. The learned lawyer submits that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the petitioner committed the alleged irregularity or illegality, the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act is not attracted. He submits that the Central Government repealed all control orders applicable to PDS dealers with effect from 31st August, 2001 and promulgated Public Distribution Control Orders. Under Clause 10 of this Or.the State Government was required to issue necessary notification authorizing the officers for effecting such seizure, inspection etc. for the shops of PDS dealers. He submits that the State Government in terms of the said Public Distribution Control Orders issued a notification on 25th May, 2006. As such he submits that during the period 31st August, 2001 and 24th May, 2006 there was no notification of the State Government and hence during this period no officer was authorized to make search, seizure and inspection of the shop of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the search and inspection made during this period in the present case on 25th April, 2003 is illegal and hence the FIR lodged is fit to be quashed. He further submits that in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad and Another vs. State of Bihar, reported in, 2007(2) PLJR 104. has quashed the order of cognizance. He submits that miscellaneous case be allowed and impugned orders be quashed.