JHOPRI SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications, namely, Cr. Misc. Nos. 3220 and 3631 of 1977 have been heard together as they arise out of the same case. One Jhopri Sao is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3220/77. His son Jawahar Prasad is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. 3631 of 1977. Jawahaf Prasad is the licensee under the Bihar Banaspati Dealers Licensing Order (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Order'). The Circle Officer, Masaurhi, inspected the business premises of Jawahar Prasad on 29-7-1975 at 3 p.m. Jawahar Prasad was not present at the shop. His father Jopri Sao was present there. The Circle Officer demanded the licence from Jhopri Sao. The licence was produced and it was found that it had been renewed upto date. The Circle Officer next demanded the stock register of Banaspati which was produced by Jhopri Sao for inspection. The Circle Officer found that the stock mentioned in the stock register was in excess by 31 kgs. than the actual stock found in the shop. The stock as mentioned in the stock register was 295 kgs. of Banaspati which on verification, however, was found only 264 kgs. The Circle Officer also demanded the cash memo from Jhopri Sao. Jhopri Sao did not produce the cash memo and gave out in writing that as the cash memo had been sent for being printed he had not issued any cash memo for sales made on that date. The Circle officer also found that the actual stock of the Banaspati had not been displayed on the board at the entrance of the shop. The stock showed on the board was 295 kgs. although as mentioned earlier the actual stock was only 264 kgs.

(2.) The Circle Officer, therefore, lodged a first information report before the Masaurhi police making the aforesaid allegations against the petitioners. The Circle Officer alleged that the petitioners had violated the conditions 4 and 7 of the licence issued under the Order as also the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Stocks) Order 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Display Order').

(3.) In due course charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners by the police and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against them for offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules. It is this order, by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners, that is being impugned in the present case.