GOPAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application the first information report of Bundu P.S case no.61 of 2009 (G.R.No. 2656 of 2009) instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 27.6.2009, when a secret information was received that good quantity of rice and wheat have been stored by one Gopal Bhagat in his house, the informant, Block Supply Officer, Bundu along with police party raided the house and found 52 bags of rice and 20 bags of wheat stored in a room. Each bag was having marking of Food Corporation of India and as such, a case was lodged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act alleging therein that the said food grains had been kept for selling it in the black market.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having possession of wheat and rice of that quantity found in the house of the petitioner is not an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, as on the day when the search was made, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. of the rice and wheat were in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) HAVING heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that admittedly 52 bags of rice and 20 bags of wheat having marking of Food Corporation of India were found stored in the house of the petitioner but the question is as to whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ? The answer would be in negative as on the day when those food grains were seized, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. were in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence, would not be liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Even if the bags containing wheat and rice were having marking of Food Corporation of India it would not fasten the petitioner with the liability to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as according to the petitioner empty bags having marking of Food Corporation of India are available in the open market which fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit.