GULAB CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing of the proceeding against these petitioners pending in G. R. Case No. 1662 of 1966 in the Court of Shri V. S. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Sasaram. Cognizance was taken on 3-1-77 and the case was transferred for trial on that day. A petition was filed before the trial Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge with a prayer that in view of the operation of Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the cognizance being bad, no charge could be framed.

(2.) The prosecution of the petitioners is as a result of two F. I. Rs. lodged in connection with the misappropriation of tins of Vanaspati ghee belonging to Rohtas Industries. A first information report was lodged first by Besh Lal Chaudhary which was numbered as Dehr P. S. Case No. 10 (10)/66. It was alleged in the first information report that 600 tins of Hanuman ghee were loaded on Truck No. BRP-2391 for being taken to the depot of the company at Barauni. Since this truck was sent on 6-11-66, when no information was received about the arrival of the truck, the first information report as stated above, was lodged on 12-10-66. Subsequently a second F.I.R. was lodged at Ranchi on 14-10-66 and a case was instituted there being Kotwali P. S., Case No. 62(10)/ 66. This was lodged by a representative of the Rohtas Industries. Allegation under Sec. 411 of the Indian Penal Code was stated to have been made out inthat first information report and it was stated that on 6-10-66. 600 tins were sent on Truck no. BRP-2391 belonging to the informant of the first case. This truck was later recovered and seized and kept in Marafari Thana. Later on, the informant of the second case was informed by one Shri Lun Karan that one Shri Paras who is a partner in the firm of the petitioners M/s. Naveen Chandra Prakash Chandra, was trying to sell some Hanuman ghee on 8-10-66, but since there could be no explanation from where the goods were obtained he did not buy it. On getting this information the informant started moving around the market and he found certain Hanuman Vanaspati tins bearing Batch nos. 200, 204 and 205 in the premises of petitioners 1 to 4. This Batch number was stated for the first time in the second F.I.R. after the informant had seen the tins in the shop of the petitioners 1 to 4. On search 92 tins of vegetable oil were recovered from the premises of the petitioners. On the basis of this F.I.R. the petitioners have been made accused in the Ranchi case. Subsequently Ranchi case and the Dehri case were amalgamated. Charge-sheet was submitted on investigation of both the cases and was filed on 24-7-76 and cognizance of the offence was taken on 3-1-77. Charge-sheet has been submitted under Sec. 406 read with Sec. 411, I. P. C.

(3.) In support of the application, learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised two points. His first point is that since the cognizance was taken after 3 years of the date of occurrence and after discovery of the name of the persons involved, the prosecution is barred by Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While taking cognizance, according to him, the court has not condoned the delay in exercise of its power under Sec. 473, Cr. P. C. His second point is that reading the prosecution material in its entirety and accepting it as wholly correct, no offence has been made out against these petitioners.