SHANKAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that it is a case of the prosecution that when certain stock of wheat and rice were found stored, it was admitted by the petitioner he had purchased it from two Public Distribution System dealers and thereby, the petitioner has been alleged to have committed offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) It was further pointed out that the said two dealers, who had earlier been made accused, has been exonerated from the charges, as no discrepancies were found in the stock of those two dealers and as such, entire case of the prosecution falls on this ground as well as on the ground that there has been no violation of any of the control order relating to sale, purchase, transportation, storage etc. of wheat and rice and thereby order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act becomes bad. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that food grains which were found in possession of this petitioner belongs to P.D.S dealer and hence, the petitioner has certainly committed offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) It be stated that the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that no discrepancies were found in the stock of those two dealers from whom the petitioner allegedly procured the wheat and rice and also on the ground that no control order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, storage etc. was in vogue on the date of occurrence which fact has never been denied. Under this situation, the order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is certainly bad and hence, it is quashed.