NARHARI GIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. The facts out of which these two applications have arisen are the following. The petitioner, it is alleged, is one of the directors of the firm of Messrs. Goswami and Company, Limited, a firm carrying on trade and business in mica mining. The firm has a mica godown in village Dhob in the district of Hazaribagh On 26-2-1951 Sri Bageshwari Prasad, Inspector of Mica Accounts, Kodarma, visited the godown and wanted to inspect the stock and accounts of mica. Hema Mahto, the shiftman in charge, and Kedar Lal, manager of the mine were, it is stated, then present at the godown. The Inspector asked them to show the stock and accounts. They refused to do so. On 16-8-1951, the Inspector submitted a report to the Subdivisional Magistrate of Hazaribagh. In this report, the Inspector complained that on demand the shiftman in charge and the manager of the petitioner's firm failed to produce the account books and stock of mica for inspection and verification. He further said that on a pre vious occasion also he had visited the godown, but neither the accounts nor the stock of mica were produced. The licensee was warned, but to no effect. The Inspector said that there was a violation of Section 11, Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and the petitioner along with other directors of the firm were liable to the penalty laid down in Section 17(2), Bihar Mica Act, 1947. On the report of the Inspector, the Subdivisional Magistrate took cognisance and summoned the directors of the firm, of whom the petitioner is one. It appears that only one witness has been examined in the case so far.

(2.) Thereafter, two petitions have been filed in this Court, in one of which the petitioner prays that the proceeding in the court below should be quashed. In the other petition a prayer has been made that the case should be withdrawn by the High Court under Article 228 of the Constitution, and the High Court should either dispose of the case itself or determine the substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution which arises in the case and then return the case to the court below to dispose of the case in conformity with the decision of the High Court on the substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

(3.) Two points have been urged, before me, one of which is common to both the applications. In substance, these two points are: (1) that the report of the Inspector of Mica Accounts does not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence under the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, by the petitioner, and, therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed; and (2) that the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, ceased to operate after the expiry of one year from 4-3-1848 and, therefore, no proceeding under the said Act could be instituted against the petitioner, in respect of an alleged, violation in 1951.