STATE Vs. SUBHAN GANAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint by some residents" of Sopore was received by the Honble Chief Justice against Mr A. M. Fazli. Sub Judge, A. D. M. Sopore, for having discharged Subhan Ganai respondent in the present case. The complaint was sent to the Vigilance Commissioner (Judical) by his Lordships, the Chief Justice on 23 -8 -1968 and the Vigilance Commissioner made a report to his Lordship the Chief Justice, who ordered that the matter be placed before me. On going throngh the relevant record, I issued notice to Subhan Ganai respondent to show cause why the order of discharge passed by the A. D. M. Sopore, wrongly mentioned as an order of acquittal should not be set aside. He appeared in pursuance of this notice and I have heard both the Learned counsel as well as the Dy. Advocate General in this case.

(2.) IT appears that a report was lodged in Police Station Sopore on 3 -8 -1968 by one Ahad Bhat wherein it was stated that the respondent Subhan Ganai had sold to him a kilo of meat for Rs. 6/ -against the controlled price of the commodity fixed at Rs. 5/ - After making some investigation the police presented a challan against the accused u/s f of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance, 2000 before the A. D. M. Sopore Mr. A. M. Fazli on 5 -8 -1968 giving the facts of the case. The Magistrate on that very day without recording any evidence acquitted the accused holding that there was no material on record which would indicate as to what was the maximum price of meat in Sopore, fixed by the authorities u/s 3 of the ordinance No. XIX of 2000, which is wrongly mentioned as 2008. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported this socalled order of acquittal. The first argument of Mr. Kaul, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused because -the facts as required u/s 190 of the Code of Cr. Procedure were not disclosed in the challan. In particular the charge sheet prepared by the police did not make any mention of any notification fixing the price nor was any such notification attached with the charge sheet. He has argued that u/s 190 (b) the Magistrate could take cognizance of this case upon a report in writing of such facts. Such facts has reference to Sub Section (a) a complaint of iacts which constitutes such offence. Mr. Kaul in support of this argument has referred to AIR 1958 Calcutta 612. This case was also under the Essential Commodities Act and this au hority lays down that The First Information Report drawn on a letter sent by a Police Sub Inspector is not report in writing as required u/s 11 of the Essential Commodities Act......"

(3.) THE judgment is brief on this point. It does not mention what language of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act is. On a perusal pf that Act, the word,8 of section 11 are as under : " No court shalf take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made bv a person who is a public servant as defined in sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code."