AZAM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Azam Ansari has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of his entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 15.02.2010 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Mandar P.S. Case No.100 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.4342 of 2009.

(2.) On the basis of the written report presented by the informant Klshore Das, Assistant. Sub-Inspector of the police, the case was registered. He narrated, inter alia, that pursuant to the information received on 18.10.2009 at 9.30 hours that the petitioner- Azam Ansari, a dealer under Public Distribution System was carrying food grains earmarked to be distributed by ration shops under Public Distribution System in a cart to be sold in the market on a higher price, the informant then after making entry in the station diary proceeded with the other constables and as soon as he arrived near Mandar market, he witnessed that some bags of food-grains were being carried on a pull cart. He went there whereupon a person accompanying pull cart escaped and he could not be apprehended. The cart puller was interrogated, who disclosed his name Gulam Sarbar and explained that the bags of rice being carried on the cart belonged to Azam Ansari (petitioner) and that he was carrying the bags of food-grains from Azam Ansari's Government ration shop to the market against fixed freight at Rs.20/- only and further disclosed that he escaped at the sight of the police party. The informant further narrated that about 4 quintals of 'Usna' rice were being taken in 9 white plastic bags. No document was produced with respect to the transportation of 9 bags of rice by the cart puller whereupon all the 9 bags containing 'Usna' rice were seized in presence of the witnesses and a seizure list was prepared. A case under Section 7 of the E.G. Act was instituted against the peti- tioner who was figured as the named accused. After investigation of the case charge-sheet was submitted against him under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner was a licensee and was permitted to run his shop under Public Distribution System and that he committed no offence much less the offence alleged under Section 7 of the E.G. Act. A report was called for from the Block Supply Officer Mandar after verifying the stock registers and relevant documents as also on physical verification of the stock in the shop, who after thorough inspection of the ration shop of the petitioner on 19.10.2009 submitted his report on 26.10.2009 (Annexure-4A) wherein he discussed that on physical verification on the ration shop, 13 bags of wheat containing 50 K.G. in each packet with 20 K.G. of wheat in a loose bag, 3 bags of rice having 50 K.G. in each bag with a loose bag containing 45 K.G. of rice and 5 drums of kerosene oil containing 200 litres in each drum were found. He further found 35 empty gunny bags and 3 empty drums. No stock register, sale registers or any other relevant register could be produced before him during inspection of the ration shop as they were seized by the police earlier and the Block Supply Officer-cum-Marketing Officer failed to establish nexus between the seized 9 bags of 'Usna' rice with the Govt. supply of rice to the ration shop but alleged that not keeping of relevant books, registers in the ration shop would tantamount to violation of licensing order. He added that he found 9 bags containing 4 quintals of 'Usna' rice at the Mandar Police Station premises and the bags in question did not find imprint Of the name of any Government agency. The bags were white in colour made of plastic. The learned counsel further submitted that no irregularity or discrepancy could be found by the Block Supply Officer-cum-Marketing Officer when he visited the shop of the petitioner being run under the Public Distribution System as all the necessary records and registers connected to the licencee shop of the petitioner was already seized by the police and there was nothing to show contrary alleged to be violative of any control order.