BRAHNVDEV PANJIYARA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ/direction, quashing the order of tire learned Magistrate, taking cognizance under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as also the entire prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. 1 of 1985, pending before the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bhagalpur.

(2.) The moot question for consideration is whether the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 (in short 'the order'), as issued by the State Government under G.S.R. No. 75 dated 10.9.1977 was vires to the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), since no prior concurrence of the Central Government was obtained by the State Government before notifying such an order and in alternative, even accepting the facts, as alleged in the complete petition, any offence is made out against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner at the relevant time was dealing with L.P.G. gas cylinders having received supply from the Indian Oil Corporation. On the direction of Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Bhagalpur, on 25.7.1985 Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, Children Development Project Officer, and Alok Narayan Sinha, Supply Inspector along with others conducted the raid pi the business premises of the petitioner. As during the raid several irregularities were found, the Supply Inspector on 9.9.1985 filed a complaint before the Special Judge, E.C. Act, alleging, inter ilia, that on verification of the stock register, it was detected that on 16.5.1985 total 357 L.P.G. gas cylinders were received. From the entry dated 31.5.1985, it further appeared that all such cylinders were sold by that day and therefore, stock was shown nil. But on verification, it was discovered though after 1.6.1985 no stock was received but the dealer had shown sale of certain cylinders on 5.6.1985 and 6.6.1985. In that view of the matter, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed forgery to manipulate the stock register and sale register in order to harass the consumers and to indulge in black marketing. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Special Judge, E.C. Act, having found a prima facie case, by order dated 1.10.1985 took cognizance of the case under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act.