MOHD IQBAL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the'Code'. It is directed against the order dated 4-9-1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mctihari, in Suit No. 61-OC/82 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 52 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (Bihar Act 37/82 (hereinafter called the 'Act' against the present petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is one of the Directors of M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works Limited ; petitioner No. 2 is the Welfare Officer-cum-Works Manager and petitioner No. 3 is the Manager of M/s Sugauli Sugar Works Limited which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act.

(2.) It appears that the Cane Officer, Motihari (Opposite party No. 2) had filed a prosecution report, dated 5-7-1982 against the present petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari. In this prosecution report the Cane Officer alleged that M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works had set up several weigh bridge for purchase of sugarcane supplied to it. On 29-3-1982 "the Joint Cane Commissioner held a spot inquiry and verified the weighment of cane carts by the employees of M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works Limited and the receipts issued to the suppliers. On inquiry it was found that Receipt No. 44163, dated 29-3-1982 for 15.90 quintals was issued to one Harihar Rai. On the proper weighment the cart was found to be having only 16.20 quintals of sugarcane. Thus a deficiency of 30 kilograms was detected. Accordingly, he submitted a prosecution report under Section 52 of the Act for contravention of Section 39 of the Act. On the receipt of this report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari took cognizance of the offence.

(3.) In this petition, apart from other grounds, it was submitted that Section 53 of the Act lays down that no prosecution shall be instituted except on the complaint made in writing by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. The prosecution report, however, shows that it was submitted by the Cane Officer and was only accepted by the Cane Commissioner. This is not in terms of the Notification No. B 5-012/69 C-1759, Patna, dated the 28th August, 1983 issued by the State Government.