JANKI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of the sole petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order of cognizance dated 8.12.1992 passed by the learned special Judge, E.C. Act, Patna in Special Case No. 45 of 1984, whereby the cognizance has been taken of the alleged offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clauses 3 and 7 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 and Condition Nos. 3 and 4 of the Licence of the Bihar Foodgrains Licences Order, 1967 and the petitioner has been summoned to stand his trial.

(2.) ONE Thakur Shiv Sagar Singh, Assistant Marketing Officer, Supply department, Patna lodged a First Information Report with the Malsalami Police Station which was registered at Malsalami P.S. Case No. 062/84 dated 5.4.1984 a copy of which is annexed as Annexure -1 to the quashing petition. He had conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on 5.4.1984 at about 12 noon which situate in Mohalla Mansoorganj, Patna City, Patna. According to the allegations levelled therein, at the time of inspection, the Display Board showing up -to -date stock position, was not displayed. The second allegation is that the petitioner failed to produce the stock register. It has also been alleged that the petitioner is carrying on his business in Mohalla Mansoorganj, Patna City which is unauthorised and he should have been carrying on his business in the principal marked yard. On these allegations, the learned Special Judge was pleased to pass the impugned order of cognizance.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order and continuance of the proceedings any further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was carrying on his business at an unauthorised place. He has taken me through the licences which are marked as Annexure -1 and 2 to the quashing petition. It is manifest from a plain reading of the same that Mansoorganj, Patna City is the allotted place of business. In the circumstances, he is right in his submission that he resides in that mohalla and is his place of business. Learned counsel for the petitioner is equally right in his submission that the substantive offences like sale of adulterated food items or sale in black -marketing is fundamentally different from such technical offences like non -production of registers or non -display of the Board, etc. He is right in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court report in AIR 1994 SC 2663 N. Nagendra Rao and Company V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, which is to the same effect.