SIDDHI SADAN GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the F.I.R. of Khodaganj P.S. Case No. 7 of 2006 dated 6.2.2006, instituted against the petitioner, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Hilsa (Nalanda) recorded as G.R. Case No. 140 of 2006.

(2.) IN the instant case a complaint was made that the petitioner and other accused persons had sold K. Oil in black market. The said complaint was made u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System under the agreement with the State Government and as such he was dealing with various trade articles supplied by the State Government being the approved agency. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on a representation of private persons and not by the department or organisation of the State Government. With reference to various decisions of this Court, as reported in *P.L.J.R. (1) Page -768) Cr. Misc. No. 43264 of 2006) and (Cr. Misc. No. 52368 of 2006) (Page -714) and P.L.J.R. 2007(4) page -215 (Cr. Misc. No. 19585 of 2007), it has been submitted that on similar circumstances this Court quashed the F.I.R. In Cr. Misc. No. 673 of 1992 and Cr. Rev. No. 330 of 1997. the Patna High Court observed that the prosecution of the petitioner under the circumstances of the case is an abuse of the process of the court and its quashing is necessary to secure ends of justice and in all the aforesaid decisions, same view has been taken.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that mainly on the ground that the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 were not applicable in case of P.D.S. shop dealers like the petitioner and hence no order issued under Section 3 of the Act punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act can be said to have been contravened even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are believed. The petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer and at the relevant period it is submitted that Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order do not come within the purview of Section 3 of the E.C. Act even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are believed.