High Court quashed an order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It held that because the notification making sugar licenses mandatory was not in force on the date of inspection, the prosecution was an abuse of process.
Impugned order dated 15-06-2010 passed by SDJM, Buxar taking cognizance is quashed.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33520 of 2011 (6) dt.16-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33520 of 2011
| ====================================================== Ramjee Prasad Keshari .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
| Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. D. N. Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== |
|
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDER |
|
| 6 | 16-05-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as |
| learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. | |
| Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15- | |
| 06-2010 passed by SDJM, Buxar in Dumraon P.S. Case No. 12 of 2010 by which and whereunder, he took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. |
The petitioner deals in sugar business and on 12-012010, his business premises was inspected by Block Supply Officer, Dumraon alongwith SDM, Dumraon and huge stock of sugar was found. The inspecting team detected some irregularity in the stock register. The inspecting team also found that the petitioner was, having valid licence to deal in sugar business but his licence had already expired on 31-12-2009 and without having
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33520 of 2011 (6) dt.16-05-2013
renewed the aforesaid licence, the petitioner was dealing in sugar business and, accordingly, the petitioner violated the rules of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and, accordingly, the above-said Dumraon P.S. Case No. 12 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner. The police investigated the aforesaid case and after investigation, submitted charge sheet and, thereafter, learned SDJM, Buxar took cognizance of the offence vide impugned order dated 15-06-2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was control for dealing in sugar business prior to 2002 but after 2002, the notification of Government came in picture and the aforesaid notification delicenced the sugar business and the aforesaid notification was in force up to 14-08-2009. After that, a new notification came, which mandates for a licence to deal in sugar business and the aforesaid notification was in force till 08-012010. It is further contended by him that again, the Government issued a notification on 27-01-2010 making licence compulsory for dealing in sugar business. It is further contended by him that admittedly, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 21-01-2010 and on the aforesaid date, there was no need to have a licence for carrying the business of sugar. It is further submitted by him that no doubt, the licence of the petitioner was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33520 of 2011 (6) dt.16-05-2013
expired on 31-12-2009 but before expiry of his licence, he had applied for its renewal on 29-12-2009 and till the date of inspection of his business premises, no order on his renewal petition, was passed by the concerned authority and, therefore, even if, it assumed that the petitioner had no licence to carry business of sugar on the date of inspection, then also, no case of Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, refuted the above-said submission arguing that admittedly, on the date of inspection, the petitioner had no valid licence to deal in sugar business and it is an admitted position that his licence had already expired on 31-12-2009 and, therefore, it is clear that on the date of inspection, the petitioner was carrying business of sugar without having any valid licence.
Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record.
It is an admitted position that licence of the petitioner had already expired on 30-12-2009 but it is also an admitted position that the effect of notification, which makes mandatory for licence, had expired on 08-01-2010 and, again, the Government issued notification on 27-01-2010 and between 08-01-2010 to 2701-2010, there was no notification, which makes licence
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33520 of 2011 (6) dt.16-05-2013
mandatory for carrying the business of sugar. Moreover, Ext. 5 reveals that the petitioner had deposited renewal fee on 29-122009, before expiry of his valid licence and admittedly, no order was passed by the concerned authority, on the aforesaid renewal petition of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, even if, on the date of inspection, the petitioner had no valid licence, then also, in view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that this petition is liable to be allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing, but only an abuse of process of the court.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15-06-2010 passed by SDJM, Buxar in Trial No. 1873 of 2010, arising out of Dumraon P.S. Case No. 12 of 2010 is, hereby, quashed.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
A.K.V./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for violation of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act regarding sugar business after the notification making the license mandatory had expired and before
Whether the order taking cognizance of the offence should be quashed given the lacuna in the mandatory licensing notification during the period of inspection.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramjee Prasad Keshari
The State of Bihar
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
