HARI PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications arise out of the same order and, as such, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Cr. Misc. No. 16172 of 1992, the petitioner Hari Prasad Agrawal is the President of Riga Sugar Co. Ltd., Riga, District Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to as the Company), whereas Prabhakar Prasad Verma, is the Senior Cane Manager, who is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 16173 of 1992. The petitioner have filed these applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 2.9.1992, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby a cognizance has been taken of an offence punishable under Section 52 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase), Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for violation of the provisions contained under Section 13(9) of the said Act.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated is that the complainant, the Cane Officer, Muzaffarpur, who is the opposite party No. 2. in these applications, has filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi to the effect that the petitioners, who are the owner and Manager respectively of the company, in question, has closed their mills inspite of the specific direction, issued by the Cane Officer as well as the Cane Commissioner, not to close their mills unless and until, the entire sugar cane allotted to the mills are crushed during the relevant season. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered being Case No. 2 -19 of 1992 and transferred to the Court of Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi for disposal, a copy of the complaint petition has been made Annexure -1 to the petitions. Admittedly the petitioners Hari Prasad Agrawal and Prabhakar Pd. Verma are the President and Senior Cane Manager of the company, in question, and the said company is registered under the provisions of the Company Act, 1956. The aim and object of the Act is to regulate the production, supply and distribution of sugar cane intended for use in Sugar Factory and Khandsari sugar manufacturing Units and taxation of sugarcane and matters incidental thereto. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record took cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners, a copy of which is made Annexure -2 to the petitions which are under challenge before this Court.