The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a cognizance order. Relying on a Division Bench precedent, the Court held that Ply Wood falls under the definition of wood, rendering the petitioner liable for prosecution without a licence.
The application for quashing the order taking cognizance was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2002
M/s Ganga Agencies Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others Opposite Parties.
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar.
----For the Petitioner : Sri. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal For the Opposite Parties : Sri V.P. Singh,Sr.Adv.,M.K. Roy.
06/05.04.2013. It appears that this application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 11.022002 passed by C.J.M. Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C III- 38/2000.
It is alleged that petitioner is running a business of Ply Wood, without taking licence from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ranchi. The main contention of the petitioner in the present application is that the Ply Wood is not an agriculture produce, therefore, no licence is required under the Agriculture Produce Market Act. Accordingly, the prosecution lodged against the petitioner is without jurisdiction.
From perusal of a Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2011(3)JCR-79 (Jhr), I find that the said question has already been set at rest. According to the aforesaid judgment, the definition of wood defined under in Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960, includes Ply Woods. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is required to take licence for dealing in ply wood. Since the petitioner had not taken licence from the Agriculture Produce Market Act Committee, Ranchi, therefore, as per section 48 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 he is liable to be prosecuted. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar, J .)
Pramanik/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable for prosecution under section 48 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 for dealing in Ply Wood without a licence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Unreported Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of JharkhandRelied on¶10
2011(3)JCR-79 (Jhr)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ganga Agencies
The State of Jharkhand
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
