ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 5.6.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardagga whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure for the discharge of the petitioner was rejected in Lohardagga P.S. Case No. 187 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 442 of 2005.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant Block Supply Officer, Lohardagga, pursuant to the direction received from the SDO, Lohardagga on telephone raided M/s. Arvind Automobile, i.e. petrol pump with the witnesses and collected the samples of petrol and diesel in two separate glasses each on 21.9.2005 on the allegation of adulteration in the oil and seizure list was prepared. On the written report of the informant Block Supply Officer, a police case was instituted for the alleged offence under Section 420, IPC as also under Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner Proprietor, Manager and the sales man of the petrol pump M/s.Arvind Automobile. It was further alleged that on physical verification major variation in the stock was found contrary to the entry in the Stock Register in the lesser quantity. It was further alleged that the details regarding explosives and trade articles were not displayed at the Notice Board and that the Stock Register was not certified by any competent officer, a copy of the seizure list was given to the Manager.

(3.) LEARNED counsel pointed out that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act is hit by Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure since the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner was punishable with the imprisonment only for one year whereas the cognizance of the offence was taken on 24.2.2007 as against the alleged date of occurrence on 21.9.2005 beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year. In view of that matter, the cognizance of the offence was bad in law, therefore, not sustainable.