Allowed

Hare Krishna Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Sept 2016Cr.M.P./1022/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act because the cognizance order failed to disclose the specific Section 3 order allegedly violated, and control over the stored goods had been removed by State notification.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance dated 11.05.2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are quashed and set aside.

Hare Krishna Hansda Vs State of Jharkhand — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 1022 of 2009

¶3

Hare Krishna Hansda ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... … … Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

............

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶7

5/07.09.2016

¶8

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

In this application, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandan Kiyari P.S. Case No. 13 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 248 of 2009 including the order dated 11.05.2009, by which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶10

First information report was instituted on 21.02.2009 in which alleged shop of the petitioner was raided and 4 quintals of rice were found kept in different place from the alleged shop. Upon investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which led to taking of cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner as it has not been stated that which order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated. It has been submitted that control with respect to storage of rice and wheat has been removed pursuant to the notification of the State of Jharkhand vide letter No. 559 dated 24.04.2002. Learned counsel further submits that only the materials were removed from one room to another which was also not in violation of the terms and conditions of the license.

¶12

Mr. V.K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶13

It is an admitted fact that cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act without disclosing the order which has been violated in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Neither in the first information report nor in the charge-sheet violation of the order has been reflected which is a mandatory necessity before taking cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It further appears that control over rice and wheat had been removed by the notification of the State of Jharkhand vide letter No. 559 dated 24.04.2002 and in absence of there being any restriction on storage of rice and wheat, the initiation of criminal case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is itself unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of this court in Cr. M.P. No. 343 of 2003 passed on 06.02.2015 .

¶14

In view of the undisputed facts and the legal issued involved in the present application which has been discussed above, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, having found merit in this application, the same is allowed and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandan Kiyari P.S. Case No. 13 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 248 of 2009, and the order taking cognizance dated 11.05.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶15

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶16

Binit

Hare Krishna Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hare Krishna Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birju Ravidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arjun Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Munna Singh Sharangdhar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Kundan Patralakh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Birju Ravidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arjun Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Munna Singh  Sharangdhar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Kundan Patralakh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Munna Singh Sharangdhar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand