BALESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004, whereby the S.D.J.M., Garhwa, took cognizance of the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Jal Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004 is bad in law in view of the fact that neither the FIR nor in the charge -sheet nor in the order taking cognizance it is disclosed as to which particular Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated/contravened and therefore, the whole criminal prosecution against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness .