Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 39 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 333 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act inter alia against the petitioner.

¶14

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner in contravention of the order no. 3 (2) of Kerosene (Restriction On Use And Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 which reads as under:-

¶15

1

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.2391 of 2017

¶17

(2025:JHHC:17682)

¶18

“3. Restriction on use of Kerosene supplied under public distribution system

¶19

(1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶20

(2) No dealer appointed under the public distribution system or a transporter shall sell, distribute or supply kerosene under the public distribution system to any person other than the person to whom the supplies are meant for.

¶21

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”

¶22

sold 250 litres of blue kerosene to the co-accused Uttam Lal Yadav; even though such huge quantity of blue kerosene oil was not meant to be supplied to Uttam Lal Yadav and thus, the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 250 litres of blue kerosene was seized by the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh from the coaccused- Uttam Lal Yadav.

¶23

On the basis of the written report submitted by the said Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh-the informant, police registered Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.39 of 2013 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet and consequent upon the same, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila took cognizance of the said offence as already indicated above.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Binod Pd. Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2015:JHHC:683 that in that case, when a search and seizure was carried out in a PDS shop without any authority, the

¶25

2

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.2391 of 2017

¶27

(2025:JHHC:17682)

¶28

coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding and for similar reason, in the case of Chatu Ghosh @ Chhotee Ghosh vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1654 of 2014 dated 25.02.2015, the same coordinate Bench also quashed the cognizance and submits that since the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh was not authorized by the State Government to carry out search and seizure in the PDS shop hence, the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the fact of this case is entirely different from the fact of the cases, the judgments of which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that there was no search or seizure of the PDS shop involved rather the seizure was made on a road in front of Zila Parishad Office; when the co-accused was carrying 250 litres of kerosene, which he purchased from the petitioner in violation of the Section 3 (2) of Kerosene (Restriction On Use And Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 and the allegation against the petitioner was found to be true. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been submitted by learned

¶31

3

¶32

Cr.M.P. No.2391 of 2017

¶33

(2025:JHHC:17682)

¶34

Additional Public Prosecutor that this is not a case which was instituted consequent upon search or seizure made in any PDS shop so the ratio of Binod Pd. Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Chatu Ghosh @ Chhotee Ghosh vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. In this case, undisputedly, the fact remains that the petitioner sold 250 litres of blue kerosene oil to the co-accused-Uttam Lal Yadav, even though such huge quantity of blue kerosene oil is not meant for sell to the co-accused by the petitioner. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner on the basis of the allegations made against him. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶35

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶36

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶37

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3^rd July, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶38

4

¶39

Cr.M.P. No.2391 of 2017

Ganesh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav Alias Sameer Darve Alias Mahendra Darve Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhrangsu Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anup Kujur Alias Bada Deepak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand