RAJESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). It is directed against the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. C-II (1) of 1992 instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short 'the Act') pending in the Court of Special Judge, E. C. Act, Katihar.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner's father carried on business in petroleum products under the name and style of M/s. Bharat Auto Service at Katihar and holds a licence bearing Licence No. 2 of 1967, renewed up-to-date, under the provisions of the law. The petitioner has got no concern with the business of his father and it is wrong to say that he is the salesman of this petrol pump. On 22-1-1992 at about 2 p.m. the District Supply Officer raided the business premises of the father of the petitioner and seized certain books of account of the petrol pump and prepared its seizure list (Annexure 1). Thereafter on 28-1-1992 he sent the complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Katihar for taking necessary action against the petitioner. On the receipt of this complaint the Special Judge by his order dated 23-9-1992 took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and ordered for the issue of summons. The allegations made in this complaint petition were that the pump was opened at 2 p.m. on 2-2-1991 whereas the farmers had assembled there from the morning. The sale of diesel was continued till the late night of 2-2-1991. No uniformity in the sale of diesel was maintained. The sale registers were not certified. The log book numbers were not maintained in cash memo and through one cash memo sale was made to 2 to 3 persons holding different log book numbers.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that clause 12 of Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Order') does not empower the District Supply Officer to enter, inspect, search and seize any thing at the business premises of a dealer. On this ground it has seriously been contended that the inspection by the District Supply Officer was without jurisdiction as a result of which the entire prosecution case is a nullity.