RAM CHANDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY , the petitioners filed the present application for quashing of the First Information Report, in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 38 of 1999 dated 28.05.1999 (G.R.Case No. 866 of 1999) registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, against the petitioners. By order dated 15.07.1999 this application was admitted for final hearing, but no order for stay of the investigation of the case by the Police was passed. It appears that during the pendency of the present application, the Police submitted chargesheet, after completion of the investigation and, accordingly, the learned Special Judge by his order dated 13.01.2000, took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners, finding a prima facie case, for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984.

(2.) THE petitioners by filing a supplementary affidavit have also challenged the order taking cognizance and it appears that by order dated 27.03.2000 this Court stayed the further proceedings of the court below in connection with the aforesaid case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.D. Agarwal has firstly submitted that the Central Government by issuing Notification being No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10th November, 1997 made certain amendments in the Central Order, namely, Pulses, Edible Oils seeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977 by deleting certain provisions in respect of Edible Oils seeds and Edible Oil. A copy of the said notification has been annexed as Annexure -3. It is submitted, that pursuant to the said amendment, as contained in Annexure -3, the Central Government requested all the State Governments to amend their respective orders in respect of Edible Oil and Edible Oil seeds. Accordingly, it was submitted that in view of the Notification No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 as contained in Annexure -3, no licence under Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, was required to be taken to deal in Edible Oils. It was further urged, that there being no storage limit on the Edible Oils and as such, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged recovery of 6.75 quintals of Mustard oil was bad. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision in Mali Ram Agarwal vs. State of Bihar report in 2001 (1) East. Cr.C. (24) has submitted that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the aforesaid decision.