SUDARSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 19-4 1978 by which cognizance has been taken under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jahanabad. It appears that the Marketing Officer of Jabanabad instituted a case under section 7 of the Act at Karpi police station on 1-8-1977 on the allegation that the petitioners who were licence-holder had violated the terms and conditions of the licence and had also violated the Price Display Order 1975 and hence were liable for prosecution under section 7 of the Act The' Karpi police investigated the case and found that the allegation made against the petitioners was not correct. Hence it submitted final report yet the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jahanabad, took cognizance under section 7 of the Act and issued summons against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate aforesaid is entirely illegal and without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed as the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance under section 7 of the Act against the petitioners when the police had submitted final report that the case was not true and the learned Magistrate had no material to take cognizance against the petitioners. It has been further contended that under section 11 of the Act no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a written report of the facts constituted an offence by a public servant. Section 11 of the Act as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to two other decisions of this Court in the case of Suraj Narain Panjiar v. State of Bihar, (1977 B. B. C. J 397) and Brahm Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar, 1977 B. B. C. J. 568). Both the decisions, referred to above, go to support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.