RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting the correctness of the Single Bench judgment of this court in Gopi Krishna Kejriwal v. State of Bihar, a learned Single Judge has referred this case to the Division Bench for deciding the question as to whether a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, who has not been specially empowered by the State Government but has been authorised by the High Court by an administrative order, can try a case if the offence is covered by Section 12-A(2)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Petitioner No.2 Domanlal Gupta is a dealer dealing in the essential commodities. On 10-7-1977 during the course of inspection of his shop premises in which the business was being conducted by petitioner No.1 Raj Kishore Prasad, who is brother of petitioner No.2, certain deficiencies and contravention of the conditions of the licence were detected. On 21-7-1977, a criminal case was justified against the petitioners, pursuant to which after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against them, on the basis of which they were prosecuted convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 7 of the Act by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur at Chaibasa. Aggrieved there by, they filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Thereafter, they have filed the present revision challenging their conviction and sentence by the aforementioned two courts.

(3.) When this revision was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been tried and convicted by a Magistrate who has not been specially empoweredT by the State Government in terms of Section 12-A (2) (b) of the Act and therefore, their conviction cannot be sustained. In support of this submission, reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on Single Bench judgment of this Court in Gopi Krishna Kejriwals case (supra) in which it was laid down that a Magistrate who has not been specially empowered by the State Government cannot try a case and convict the accused for an offence covered under Section 12-A (2) (b) of the Act. The learned Single Judge, who was hearing the revision, doubted the correctness of the said judgment as he was of the-view that the de facto doctrine as laid down by the Apex Court in Bokar Raja Rangaraju v. State of A.P. will be attracted in such a case. This case was, accordingly, referred to a Division Bench for deciding this issue.