LAWS(RAJ)-1991-4-43

SHIV PRASAD PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 11, 1991
SHIV PRASAD PALIWAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 25-4-86 whereby he upheld the order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 15-2-1983.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was posted as a Enforcement Officer and inspected the godown of one Banwarilal. He found that there was contravention of the condition laid down under the licence issued under Cl. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Dealer Licensing Order, 1964. On this he filed a complaint against Banwarilal for the offence u/ S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A document Ex. 5, described as copy of Godown Register was produced along with the complaint. During the trial it was revealed that Register No. 64 was interpolated as 69 by making '4' as '9'. Thus the accused was acquitted of the charge on 5-2-80 by the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, Banwarilal filed an application u/ S. 340, Cr. P. C. On this application, the learned Magistrate ordered that a complaint be filed against the present petitioner for the offences u/ Ss. 193, 446 and 470, IPC. Accordingly, the complaint was filed by the Munsif Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. The petitioner moved an application and submitted that the prosecution is clearly without jurisdiction for want of sanction as required by S. 15A of the E.C. Act. The application was rejected by the order dated 15-2-83. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, which was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Magistrate has not formed any opinion as required u/ S. 340, Cr. P.C. for filing the complaint, therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is absolutely without jurisdiction. He has relied on Deen Bandhu v. State of Rajasthan 1983 Raj LR 1027, Brijmohanlal v. Sohanraj, 1962 Raj LW 442: (1963 (1) Cri LJ 713, Nimmakayala Audi Narayanamma v. State of A.P. AIR 1970 Andh Pra 119: (1970 Cri LJ 443).