BISHNU DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of their entire criminal proceeding including the order impugned dated 6.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act against them in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.178 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2005.

(2.) PROSECUTION was launched on the basis of the written report presented by the informant Block Supply Officer, Sahibganj before the officer -in -charge of Sahibganj Police Station stating, inter alia, that he had received information on 18.11.2005 that the local L.P.G. distributor, namely, Shri Bishnu Deo Singh had been selling L.P.G. refills in black market with the help of his employees. A team was organized for conducting raid comprising Executive Magistrate, District Supply Officer and many other officers including the police force and the team conducted raid in the house of one Beni Prasad Tanti. It was alleged that Beni Prasad Tanti though escaped, but in course of search, three filled L.P.G. cylinders of Indane Gas were recovered to which no explanation could be given. However, wife of the said Beni Prasad Tanti narrated that these cylinders were kept in her house by her neighbour Sambhu Prasad Gupta , who was an employee of the local gas distributor, namely, Shri Bishnu Deo Singh. From that place, the raiding party went to the residential office of the local distributor -petitioner No.1 Shri Bishnu Deo Singh but it was alleged that he escaped after locking his office and the members of his family did not co -operate in such inquiry by producing the coupons of the gas cylinders. His office was sealed in presence of the senior officers and finally, it was alleged that the petitioner No.1 Shri Bishnu Deo Singh with the help of his employees, had kept three filled gas cylinders in the house of the petitioner no.3 Beni Prasad Tanti so that the cylinders could be sold in the black market. It was requested to take action against all the three petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as also under relevant Sections of the Explosive Substance Act.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , petitioner No.1 had obtained licence for distribution of L.P.G. cylinders of Indane company and also obtained licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Explosive Department, Government of India, which was renewed upto 31.3.2006 as would be evident from Annexeure -2 of this petition. Such licence used to be issued to the licensee, distributing L.P.G. cylinders under the Explosive Act but not under the Explosive Substance Act and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners under Explosive Substance Act would amount to miscarriage of justice when there is no allegation at all that they had contravened any provision of Explosive Substance Act much less causing explosion by using explosive substance. Entire allegations are misconstrued and the evidence could not refer that the petitioners had ever hands in selling the Indane L.P.G. cylinders in black market.