AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the first information report bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 311 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1736 of 2008 which was lodged against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and L.P.G. (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (in short "the Order, 2000"). On the basis of a written report of the Marketing Officer, Supply. Ranchi, the aforesaid case was instituted on 6.5.2008 with the allegation that on the said date at about 10:55 a.m., a search was conducted in the premises of New Mansi, Sahid Chowk, Ranchi from where two pieces of 14.2 kgs. capacity L.P.G. empty cylinders of IOC Company, 13 pieces of 2 Kgs. capacity empty cylinders of Surya Company, 25 pieces of 5 Kgs. capacity empty cylinders of Surya Company were recovered and it was suspected that those cylinders were kept for refilling small cylinders from big cylinders with intention to earn more money.

(2.) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission on a solitary question that the search and seizure were made in contravention of Clause 13 of the Order, 2000 and the entire cylinders either big or small were found empty and even no filled gas cylinder and no refilling apparatus like nozal or pipe were seized by the informant. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide consumer of Indian Oil Corporation and he was authorized supplier of the small cylinders of Surya Gases Pvt. Ltd. Co. Madhya Pradesh and that the informant Marketing Officer, Supply, Ranchi was not authorized to make any search in the premises of the petitioner rather from the order of Additional Collector (Law and Order), Ranchi dated 5.5.2008 enclosed with the written report, it would appear, that only a list of hotels were provided to the said Marketing Officer where the search was to be made and not in premise of this petitioner. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the cases of Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala; : (2000) 8 SCC 590 and Gurdayal Singh Bhatia @ Gurdayal Singh; : 2007 (2) East. Cr.C. 91 (Jhr.).

(3.) From the record, it appears that no counter affidavit has been filed by the State authority. The learned counsel representing the State merely submitted that the said Marketing Officer was authorized by the Additional Collector (Law and Order), Ranchi to make search and seizure.