ABHAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') of Naubatpur P.S. Case No.121 of 2019 dtd. 2/3/2019 registered for the offence punishable under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been instituted in utter haste even without verifying as to whether the consumers who made complaint against the petitioner are actually the consumers connected with the PDS dealership of the petitioner. The statement of the consumers recorded by the Block Supply Officer, Naubatpur does not attract culpability of the petitioner, as none of the consumers had disclosed the name of the petitioner as the PDS dealer, who did not supply the food-grains for the month of January, 2019. As far as the allegation that the PDS shop of the petitioner was not found at the place as described in the license is concerned, the truth of the matter is that the petitioner had submitted application before the concerned respondent authorities to change the place of PDS shop, as he was not able to run his PDS shop smoothly at the place described in the license and the Supply Officer, Patna, verbally allowed the petitioner to shift his place of business and also intermittently inspected the shop after shifting of the shop.