SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner figures as accused in Special Case No. 28 of 1983 under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the E.C. Act) and Ss.467, 468, 420 and 171 of the I.P.C. pending in the court of Special Judge (under the E.C. Act) Patna. After having appeared before the court he at first made a prayer for discharge on the ground that the materials on record do not make out any offence against him but this prayer was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 18-4-1984. Subsequently on 9-5-1984 the learned Special Judge purports to have explained the substance of accusations relating to the offences of the case to the accused and as the petitioner (accused) pleaded not guilty he ordered for summoning of the witnesses. Prayer in this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing this order dated 9-5-1984 as well as the order dated 18-4-1984. The petition also contains the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of this case.

(2.) The petitioner is a licenced public distribution ration shop keeper in Mohalla Golghar which is a locality of Patna town within Kotwali P. S. According to the prosecution case, the Executive Magistrate Shri Ram Vinod Singh accompanied by his Supply Inspector Shri C.M. Tewary visited the petitioner's fair price shop on 12-6-1983 and in course of inspection and physical verification they are said to have found several irregularities in respect of sale and distribution of various articles to several ration card holders. This according to the Magistrate constituted offences under S.7 of the E. C. Act and under various sections of the I.P.C. The Executive Magistrate accordingly filed the written report dated 26-6-1983 at the Kotwali P. S. on the basis of which Kotwali P. S. Case No. 677 dated 27-6-1983 was instituted (G.R. Case No. 2572 of 1988). The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under S.7 of the E.C. Act and Ss.467, 468, 420 and 171 of the I.P.C. giving rise to the Special Case No. 28 of 1983 in the court of the special Judge, Patna. It may be noted that on the basis of the report of the Executive Magistrate, a parallel proceeding for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner had been initiated before the Special Officer Rationing, Patna. In response to the direction of the Special Officer Rationing, the petitioner filed a show cause before him in respect of the allegations made against him in the report of the Executive Magistrate. The order passed by the Special Officer Rationing on 12-1-1984, which has been made Annexure-III to the present application, shows that the Special Officer after considering the show cause and also the statements made by the witnesses before the police in course of the investigation, found it expedient to withdraw the order of suspension against the petitioner, which means his licence to run the shop was restored. The Special Officer Rationing, however, clearly observed in that order that this will not have any effect on the criminal case pending against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that the allegations made by the Executive Magistrate in his written report, which form the FIR of the case, are imaginary and presumptuous and are not based on facts, and as such the prosecution against him is unwarranted. His contention is that the Magistrate while taking cognizance and explaining the substance of accusation of offences, did not judicially apply his mind and merely recorded his order in a mechanical way without even understanding what he was placing before the accused. It has further been submitted that although offence under the E.C. Act is to be tried in a summary way, offences under Ss.467, 468 and 420 I.P.C. cannot legally be tried under the summary procedure and as such the Magistrate acted illegally in explaining the substance of accusation and in adopting the summary procedure in respect of these offences. On the basis of the above submissions, it has been contended by the petitioner that not only the orders dated 9-5-1984 and 18-4-1984 are fit to be quashed but the entire proceeding should be quashed as its continuation would merely cause harassment to the petitioner and would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.