The High Court at Patna dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a discharge petition in a crime under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Finding no apparent error in the lower court's order, the single-judge bench refused to interfere.
The petition seeking quashing of the impugned order 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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41835 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2010 Thana -KARJAIN District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Mohan Sharma, son of Late Sonelal Sharma, resident of Village - Bairdah (Motipur) P.S.- Karjain, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rameshwar Paswan, Block Supply Inspector - cum- Block Supply Officer, Rahopur, District- Supaul .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 20-06-2016 Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 01.08.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur in Karjain P.S. Case no.8/2010 registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. By the said order, the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned does not assign any reason for rejection of the discharge petition nor any contention of the petitioner, which was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41835 of 2013 (2) dt.20-06-2016
2/2
against the discharge petition, has been mentioned by the learned court below.
On perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been made as one of the named accused in the F.I.R. It is further evident that earlier, the petitioner against the order of cognizance had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Cr.Misc.No.43175 of 2010, which stood disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner that he may raise his plea before the court below at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even despite the order of this Court passed in Cr.Misc.No.43175 of 2010, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason nor considered the case of the petitioner and, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any apparent error warranting interference. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
NKS/U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the discharge petition under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act warrants quashing for lack of recorded reasons.
Mohan Sharma
The State of Bihar
Rameshwar Paswan
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
