BISWANATH CHAUDBARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application are accused in a prosecution for violation, it is stated, of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the basis of a report dated 26.10.1974, made by the Supply Inspector of Deori, who inspected the business premises of M/s. Maheshwari Bhandar, a wholesale foodgrains dealer of Mahua, where it is alleged certain quantities of rice and wheat were found in excess. This report was filed before the Mahua police station and a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. After completion of investigation charge-sheet, dated 1.8.75, was filed recommending action under section 7 of the Act. On the basis of this report and charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, on 24.3.77.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point that has been raised in this case, and which is now well settled by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, I would like to set out below the relevant portions of the charge-sheet dated 1.8.76 and of the order taking cognizance dated 24.3.77. (Charge-sheet)

(3.) Two points have been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, that the charge sheet is, in view of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act and several decisions on this point, the basis for taking cognizance in a matter under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and it is essential that facts setting out an offence should be stated therein and, secondly, that the first information report cannot be looked into for the purposes of finding material to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance. Undoubtedly, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are of substance and have to be accepted. The order taking cognizance as well as the charge sheet are remarkably devoid of two vital elements. Firstly, they do not mention the order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, justifying the application of section 7 of the Act which has been violated. This is, blissfully for the petitioners, completely absent. Secondly, no violation of any kind whatsoever has been started in either of them. In regard to looking into the contents of the first information report for filing the materials into a vague charge-sheet, the Supreme Court in an unreported decision (Deokaran Agarwalla v. The State of Bihar, Cr. A. No. 38 of 1968, decided on 26.11.68) has held that the first information report cannot be looked into for the purposes of taking cognizance. All that the Magistrate taking cognizance can look into the charge-sheet which must be held to be the report of 'a public servant. This decision is referred to in an unreported decision of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No 4020 of 1975, disposed of on 11th January, 1977. In AIR 1961 SC 929 (Bhagvati Saran v. The State of Bihar), the requirements of a charge sheet have been spelt out and that decision also states that the charge sheet must at least contain the ingredients of the offence charged. The charge sheet in this case falls short' of the minimum requirement stated in that decision Not only that but the charge-sheet is completely devoid of any fact that may bring out an infringement of law by the petitioners except stating that section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is violated which section perhaps applies to a large number of orders promulgated under section 3 of the Act. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the order of cognizance dated 24.3.77 passed in G. R. Case No 2201 of 1974 (TR 376 of 1977).