Shabnam Hasmi Vs The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.65 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-788 Year-2022 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran

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

SHABNAM HASMI Wife of Md. Ishaque Represent her ill husband (Physically Paralysed namely Md. Ishaque) in capacity of A Legal Guardian, R/V- Baltharba, P.O and P.S- Piprakothi in the Dist- of East champaran presently posted as District Statistic Officer at Muzaffarpur (Bihar)

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Inspector General of Police, Police Commissionary, Muzaffarpur

¶10

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah

¶12

The Dy. Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah

¶13

¶14

¶15

The Inspector of Police at Bagaha, West Champaran

¶16

The Station Head Officer (SHO) Bagaha (Patkhauli) P.S- Bettiah

¶17

The Investigation Officer (I.O) in Bagaha Patkhauli P.S- Case No. 788/2022 Bihar

¶18

The Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation, Ltd., Patna

¶19

... ... Respondent/s

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶22

4 20-01-2025

¶23

The issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to

¶24

whether, registration of two F.I.Rs over the same incident, violates Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, causing double jeopardy to the accused.

¶25

The petitioner is the wife of accused. It is sufficient to state that the husband of the petitioner was a Block Statistical Officer in additional charge of the F.C.I. godown situated at

¶26

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 2/7

¶27

Bagha-2, Block.

¶28

That on 8^th October, 2018, Assistant District Supply Officer, Bagha-1, lodged a written complaint against the husband of the present petitioner, after investigation of stock position of food grains in F.C.I. godown, situated at Bagha-1 and Bagha-2, Block and finding huge shortage of food grains. The enquiry team found the following discrepancies:-

¶29

“ 1- xsgwWa dh ek+=k LVkWd iath esa vafdr ek=k ls 128 cSx vf/kd gSA

¶30

2- pkoy dh ek=k LVkWd iath esa vafdr ek=k ls yxHkx 547 cSx de gSA

¶31

3- cxgk&2 iz[k.M eq[;ky; fLFkr ch,l,Qlh xksnke la[;k&03 esa dkQh la[;k esa [kkyh cSx ik;s x;sA izHkkjh lgk;d xksnke izca/kd ls iwNus ij crk;k x;k fd ;s fjiSfdax ds fy, tks {kfrxzLr cSx dks cnyus ds fy, fd;k tkrk gS] ijUrq HkkSfrd lk{; ds :i esa ,sls [kk~|kUu ls Hkjs {kfrxzLr cSx ugh ik;s x;s] ftls cnyuk gksA xksnke esa pkoy ds dqy 60 cSx vkSj xsgwa ds 97 fjiSd cSx ik;s x;s gSA bldh vf/kd la[;k otu esa cnyko vkSj feykoV dh vksj bafxr djuk gSA

¶32

4- osbZax e'khu dh tkap ls Hkh mlesa xM+cM+h ik;h xbZA ,d iqjkus 50 fd-xzk- ds yksgs ds cV[kjs dk out csbZax e’khu }kjk 50 fd-xzk- fn[kyk;k x;k] tcfd ml cV[kjs esa ekirkSy foHkkx dk dksbZ eqgj vafdr ugha FkkA lkFk gh mlesa uhps ls Hkjk x;k /kkfRod inkFkZ xk;c FkkA vr% otu ekih esa xM+cM+h ,oa /kks[kk/kjh ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶33

5- izHkkjh lgk;d xksnke izca/kd }kjk crk;k

¶34

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 3/7

¶35

x;k fd cxgk&1 fLFkr ch,l,Qlh xksnke esa o"kZ 2015 dk lM+k gqvk pkoy j[kk x;k gS] ftldh lwpuk muds }kjk ,d i= }kjk ftyk izca/kd] jkT; [kk| fuxe] csfr;k dks fn;k x;k gS] tks lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA ml i= esa flQZ pkoy dk ftdz gS] tcfd cxgk&1 fLFkr xksnke esa [kjkc xsgWwa ds cgqr lkjs cSx iqjkus ,oa fjiSd fd;s x;s ik;s x;sA mDr pkoy dh uhykeh ugha fd;k tkuk ,oa mlds vfrfjDr xsgWwa dk fjiSfdax djkuk lafnX/k xfrfof/k gSA bl lanHkZ esa iwNs tkus ij izHkkjh lgk;d xksnke izca/kd }kjk dqN ugha crk;k x;kA

¶36

6- cxgk&1 fLFkr xksnke esa xsg W w ds cSx j[ks tkus laca/kh dksbZ Hkh tokc izHkkjh lgk;d xksnke izca/kd }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA mUgksaus mDr xksnke esa flQZ pkoy gksus dh ckr dgha FkhA cxgk&2 fLFkr buds xksnke esa 8 cSx xsgwWa dk vf/kd iSdsV FkkA mUgksusa cryk;k fd o"kZ 2015 esa cxgk&1 esa dsoy [kjkc xq.koRrk okyk pkoy j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj ml LVkWd iath esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd cxgk&1 fLFkr xksnke esa lafpr ¼120 cSx½ xsgwW Hkh LVkWd iath esa ntZ gksaxsA vFkkZr dqy xsgWw dk 120+8 dqy 128 cSx LVkWd iath esa vafdr ek=k ls vf/kd gSA

¶37

bl izdkj tkap izfrosnu esa xsgwW dh ek=k 128 cSx vf/kd ik;k tkuk] pkoy dh ek=k 547 cSx de tk;k tkuk rFkk o"kZ 2015 ds lM+s gq;s pkoy dh fuykeh ugha djk;k tkuk] rFkk xksnke esa j[ks gq;s 214 cksjs xsgWw ,oa pkoy dk feykoV dj fjiSfdax djk;k tkuk Li"V djrk gS fd eks0 blgkd] iz[k.M lkaf[;dh i;Zos{kd] cxgk&2 &lg& izHkkjh lgk;d xksnke izca/kd] cxgk&2 }kjk dkykctkjh dh xbZ gSA”

¶38

After such enquiry, an F.I.R. was lodged against the

¶39

husband of the petitioner before the In-charge of Patkhauli

¶40

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 4/7

¶41

Outpost. On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered a case being Bagha P.S. Case NO. 499 of 2018, dated 10^th October, 2018, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against the husband of the petitioner.

¶42

It was not the out of place to mention that against the husband of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated and he was compulsorily retired from his post. The petitioner has also filed some medical documents to show that her husband is suffering from paralysis and completely bed ridden.

¶43

Subsequent to institution of the complaint case and the departmental proceeding, another F.I.R. was lodged by the District Manager, State Food Corporation alleging, inter alia, that the husband of the petitioner was the In-charge of the godown in question during the period between 30^th May, 2012 to 6^th October, 2018. During his tenure, he committed unintentional loss/damage of the food-grains amounting to Rs. 28260275.56 (rice) and Rs. 16972089.37 (wheat), total being Rs. 4,52,32,364.93. On the basis of said F.I.R., Police registered Bagha P.S. Case No. 788 of 2022, dated 11^th November, 2022, under Sections 420/409/120(B) of the I.P.C.

¶44

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 5/7

¶45

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the F.I.Rs relating to the same incident, in respect of one and identical incident, two F.I.Rs cannot be lodged and institution of two criminal cases against the husband of the petitioner violates his constitutional right and double jeopardy, enunciated under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

¶46

Both the State Government as well as the Food Supply Corporation submitted their separate counter affidavits alleging, inter alia, that both the cases are maintainable against the petitioner.

¶47

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is a penal for contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 3 speaks about powers to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act imposes bounden duty upon the godown In-charge to maintain stock of foodgrains. It is alleged that the husband of the petitioner did not maintain the stock of the food-grains and during inspection huge quantity of food-grains was found to be not in the said godown. Violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is practically non-compliance of the official duty of the godown In-charge. For such non-compliance, he is liable to be punished

¶48

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 6/7

¶49

under Section 7 of the said Act.

¶50

On the contrary, Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is the penal provision against distribution of any article of food, other than an article refers to Section 2 in Sub-clause (1) in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any Rule made thereunder. When it is found that there was loss of huge quantity of food-grains from the godown without any order of the concerned authority, Section 16 will apply.

¶51

On the contrary, Section 420 and Section 409 operate absolutely on different criminal act/omission. Section 409 speaks about criminal breach of trust by different servant. Criminal breach of trust is defined in section 405 of the I.P.C.

¶52

An In-charge of a godown of Food Supply Corporation is entrusted with the food-grains. When it is found that there was loss of food-grains, it is, prima facie, presumed that it was dishonestly mis-appropriated by the husband of the petitioner, who is a Government employee. The petitioner did not contradict that the Government suffered a loss of more than Rs. 4.52 Crores.

¶53

Section 420 of the I.P.C. is an offence of cheating. It is for the Investigating Officer to prove that the husband of

¶54

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.65 of 2023(4) dt.20-01-2025 7/7

¶55

the petitioner had fraudulent or dishonest intention to dispose of or deliver any property to any person and thereby cause monetary damage to the Government, prima facie, ingredient of Section 420 of the I.P.C. is said to be established.

¶56

Therefore, this Court is not in a position to hold that by filing two F.I.Rs over the incident in hand, the husband of the petitioner suffers double jeopardy. The similar view was taken by a Co-ordiante Bench by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 1960 of 2018 (M/s Jai Mata Di Mini Rice Mill Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) , I do not find any reasons to take contrary view in the instant criminal writ petition.

¶57

For the reasons stated above, the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed on contest.

¶58

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶60

pravinkumar/-

¶61

U T

Shabnam Hasmi v. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabnam Hasmi v. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

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

Shakteshwar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Jyoti Rani Vs The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Home Depot. Govt. of Bihar,Patna

Vikalp Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mr. Anand Kishore

Sujeet Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna

Apurva Harsh Vs the State of Bihar through the Director Prosecution, Patna

Manohar Pandit Vs Pinki Devi