NIWAS MOHANKA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been heard together at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners, and this judgment will govern both the cases.

(2.) The petitioner in each case owns a rice mill granted under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act of 1958. The rice milling operation is carried on by a single huller. It appears that the Government of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made an order on 23rd December, 1967, known as 'Bihar Foodgrains Procurement Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). It came into force on the 1st December, 1967, and remained in force till 30th June, 1968. The petitioner in each case, during the period 1 -12 -1967 to 23 -1 -1968, milled certain quantities of rice on cultivators' account after having charged rates per quintal for conversion, without keeping any part of the rice so milled. It appears that on 9 -1 -1968, the Supply Inspector made some endorsements on the mill register of each of the petitioners. On 24 -1 -1968, the Additional District Supply Officer inspected the business premises of each petitioner and having found from the register that the petitioner in each case had actually manufactured certain amount of rice on cultivators' account, made a report on 30 -1 -1968 to the Subdivisional Officer for demanding 25% of the production under Clause 13 of the order, and to further show cause why the milling licence should not be cancelled. On 1 -2 -1968, the petitioner was asked by the Subdivisional Officer to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner in each case showed cause and contented that the crushed paddy was in cultivators' account and the cultivators, on whose account the paddy was crushed, had already paid levy on the stock so crushed and as such there was no liability on the petitioner to pay any further levy on such de -husking. The show cause petition was rejeted and cognizance was taken in case No. 470 of 1968 on 23 -2 -1968, while in case No. 549 of 1968, cognizance was, taken on 7 -3 -1968 and the cases were transferred to the Munsif Magistrate, for disposal. The petitioner in each has now come up to this Court to have the proceedings quashed, which is pending trial before the Munsif Magistrate of Jamtara.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both cases, Mr. S.B. Sanyal has raised a number of points which may be stated in his own words, and they are as follows :