Disposed¶37

Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw v. The State of Bihar

Essential Commodities Act – Section 7 – quashing of FIR

Patna HC15 Mar 2024CR. WJC/104/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 104 of 2021 (decided 15-03-2024, Bibek Chaudhuri, J) - Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw v. The State of Bihar & Ors. - quashing of FIR under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 I.P.C.; seizure of rice by Supply Inspector; non-PDS foodgrain trader (Shivam Traders); cash memos/invoices of open-market purchases; reliance on coordinate-bench decisions Dilip Kumar, Sandip Kumar Jaiswal, Arjun Prasad; Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 quashed; abuse of power; certiorari.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 (dated 21.08.2018) under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act quashed; the instant writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶37

Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

F.I.R. registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 (dated 21.08.2018) under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act quashed; the instant writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a trader of foodgrains (not a Public Distribution System dealer) who stored rice partly resembling subsidised rice, could be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

For storing rice in the godown and shop by the petitioner, he cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C.; the Court concurred with the view of the Coordinate Benches on this issue.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the documents, submissions, legal provisions and precedents cited, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contentions and held that the actions of the respondent authorities lack legal justification and may constitute an abuse of power.

¶35

Key takeaways

The Court found no merit in the instant F.I.R. and quashed it.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Essential Commodities Act - Section 7 - quashing of FIR - Petitioner, proprietor of Shivam Traders, a foodgrains trader who contended he was not a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer, was arraigned in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 (dated 21.08.2018) after the Supply Inspector seized rice from his possession on the belief that it resembled subsidised rice; petitioner placed on record cash memos and invoices showing purchase of the seized foodgrains from various traders. Held, merely storing rice which partly resembles subsidised rice does not attract Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act or Section 420 of the I.P.C.; the Court concurred with three unreported coordinate-bench decisions of the Patna High Court, against which the State raised no legal point; finding the actions of the respondent authorities to lack legal justification and possibly amounting to abuse of power, the Court quashed the FIR and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.104 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2018 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL SAW S/o Late Mahangu Saw Resident of Damriyahi, Maharani Asthan, P.S.- Malsalami, Distt- Patna, Proprietor of Shivam Traders, Mithapur, Distt- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Patna. Bihar

¶9

The District Magistrate, Patna Bihar

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna. Bihar

¶11

Rashmi, the Supply inspector, Sub Division Patna, Distt- Patna Bihar

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.M. Nasrul Huda Khan, APP

¶16

======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶18

4 15-03-2024

¶19

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, directing the respondent authorities to quash F.I.R. in connection with Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018, dated 21.08.2018, instituted against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶21

The allegation made out in the FIR, in brief, is that the FIR is registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) include the seizure of rice by the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.104 of 2021(4) dt.15-03-2024 2/4

¶23

Supply Inspector due to the allegation that the seized rice, believed to be similar to subsidized rice, was found in the possession of the petitioner. This led to the filing of the FIR by the Supply Inspector, alleging a violation of the provisions of the E.C. Act regarding the possession of essential commodities.

¶24

It is asserted by the Petitioner that the legality, validity, and justification of the actions taken by the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 7, contended by the petitioner that they are not a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer but a trader of foodgrains, conducting business under the name and style of M/S Shivam Traders. It is also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that rice and wheat do not fall under any control order, and therefore, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not applicable to them. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to purchase and sell rice from the open market.

¶25

It is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he has annexed series of cash memos and invoices in Annexure-2 series, showing that he purchased the seized foodgrains from various traders. Therefore, the petitioner has not violated any provision of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, he cannot be held liable under

¶26

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.104 of 2021(4) dt.15-03-2024 3/4

¶27

Section 7 of the said Act. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he has not cheated any person. There is no complaint against the petitioner alleging cheating in the course of business. Merely, storing rice, which partly resembles with the subsidised rice, the petitioner cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶28

In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the following unreported decisions of this Court, passed by the Coordinate Benches:-

¶29

I. Dilip Kumar Vrs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15437 of 2014), decided on 11th April, 2018.

¶30

II. Sandip Kumar Jaiswal @ Sandip Jaiswal Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2245 of 2017), decided on 26th July, 2018.

¶31

III. Arjun Prasad @ Arbind Kumar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12491 of 2022), decided on 8th February, 2024.

¶32

Learned Advocate for the State has not raised any legal point against the Judgments passed by this Court in the above mentioned cases.

¶33

After perusal of the documents and careful consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner and the

¶34

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.104 of 2021(4) dt.15-03-2024 4/4

¶35

relevant legal provisions and precedents cited, this Hon'ble Court finds merit in the petitioner's contentions. The actions of the respondent authorities appear to lack legal justification and may indeed constitute an abuse of power.

¶36

This Court concurs with the view of the Coordinate Benches on the issue that for storing rice in the godown and shop by the petitioner, he cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C.

¶37

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the instant F.I.R. and accordingly, the F.I.R. is quashed.

¶38

The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed

¶39

of.

¶40

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶41

uttam/-

¶42

Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shashi Kant Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Md. Munazir Alam @ Md. Munazir Siddiquee @ Munazir Siddiquee Vs The State of Bihar

Mira Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Vigilance Dep., Gov. of Bihar at Patna

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.