BHOGI MEHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No body appears on behalf of the Petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State and Opposite Party No. 2 are present.

(2.) In this application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 16.8.1995 for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (For short 'the Act').

(3.) It appears that on 3rd of November, 1993, a co-villager of the Petitioner filed a petition by way of complaint before the Special Judge, Madhubani, to the effect that the Petitioner is a licensee of fair price shop and in that capacity, he was selling kerosene oil at the rate of Rs.3.50 per litre instead of Rs. 2.60 which is the price fixed for selling kerosene oil and also selling sugar at the rate of Rs.10/- per kg. instead of Rs. 8.50/- per kg. On the basis of the said complaint, the Circle Officer, Ladaniya, inspected the shop and seized kerosene oil from the shop of the Petitioner and thereafter stopped supply of articles for distribution without initiating any proceeding. The shop remained closed for five months. After the shop was reopened, the Complainant along with others came to the shop of the Petitioner for kerosene oil and sugar but it is alleged that the Petitioner instead of supplying the same, abused the Complainant. It is alleged that the Petitioner sold the essential articles in black market in violation of the provisions of the order made under Section 3 of the Act. A copy of the complaint petition is made annexure 1 to this petition On receipt of the complaint petition, at the request of the Complainant himself, the learned Magistrate sent the complaint petition for lodging First Information Report in term of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Again, it appears that the Complainant filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recalling the aforesaid order and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 22.11.1995 recalled the order passed earlier and forwarded the complaint petition to the Assistant Supply Officer for inquiry in term of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Assistant Supply Officer submitted a report to the effect that the allegation made in the complaint petition is not correct Again, the Complainant filed a petition praying for further inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure by the Court itself after rejecting the inquiry report submitted by the Asstt. Supply Officer. The learned Magistrate accepted the prayer of the Complainant. Two witnesses were examined during the course of inquiry. Learned Special Judge ultimately took cognizance of an offence against the Petitioner as stated above. The order of taking cognizance is vitiated because of two reasons; firstly the very order of taking cognizance punishable under Section 7 of the Act is barred by limitation. Admittedly, the cognizance of the offence was taken after two years without condoning the delay as envisaged under Section 473 of the Code and secondly once the matter was referred for inquiry, learned Magistrate has acted illegally in referring the matter to the Court for further inquiry without awaiting for the earlier inquiry report. Lastly, the instant case was instituted in the year 1993 and no positive step has been taken for concluding the trial.