SRIRAM DESALS Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this misc. petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa whereby he has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He has also challenged the order dated 27.4.2004 whereby the revision filed by him, against the order of learned Magistrate, has been dismissed.

(2.) A complaint came to be filed by one Harkesh Meena, Enforcement Officer, District Supply Officer, Dausa before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa which was registered as case no.155/2000. After recording of the statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate issued process and summoned the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.1.2004, the arguments on charge were heard and the learned Magistrate decided to frame charge against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, but without any success as the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. Hence, the present misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners seeking to challenge the aforesaid orders.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner had already applied for license on 6.5.1997 and had deposited the fee of Rs.25/- vide challan no.342 of even date. But the licensing authority had neither granted the license nor disposed of the application filed by the petitioner for seeking license. He has also submitted that the license is granted for five years. In other words, if the license had been granted to the petitioner in the year 1997 then the same would have been valid up-to the year 2002. The instant inspection of the petitioner firm was done on 19.11.1999. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that soon after the inspection conducted by the Inspector, the petitioner had further pursued his application for grant of license and the same was granted to him on 27.11.1999. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murarilal Jhunjhunwala Vs. State of Bihar & others, 1991 AIR(SC) 515. He has also placed reliance on the case of Indexport Ltd. and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1994 CrLJ 838 and the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Champalal,2002 1 CrLR(Raj) 55.