JAGANNATH PRASAD KESARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Jagannath Prasad Kesari alias Chirai, who is an accused in a case pending before a Munsif Magistrate, First Class. Buxar, and in which charge under Section 24 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 has already been framed against him, has filed the present petition in revision for quashing the proceeding relating to the above criminal case.

(2.) It appears that on receipt of some confidential information, a raid was conducted on 10-7-1964 in the house of one Mangru Ahir of Chausa Bazar, police station Chausa, and as a result of this raid which was conducted in the presence of a Magistrate, 200 bags of cement were recovered from the aforesaid house. It is further alleged that Mangru Ahir had alleged that the bags ot cement had been kept at his place by the present petitioner, who has got a licence for sale of cement. The Officer-in-charge of Buxar police station, who had conducted this raid, thereafter, drew up a formal first information report on the basis of his own report and the investigation of the case was taken up by the same officer. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet dated 7-11-1964 was submitted to the Sub-divisional Magistrate as against the present petitioner alone and the cognizance of the case was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Buxar, as per order passed by him on 24-11-1964 on the basis of this charge-sheet, and the case was thereafter transferred to another Magistrate for disposal. After several adjournments on account of various reasons, the case was taken up for framing of charges against the petitioner on 9-12-1966, and on that day a charge under Section 24 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, was framed as against the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the Sessions Court for making a reference to this Court for quashing the proceeding, hut that petition was rejected by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 16-3-1967. Thereafter, the present application in revision has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case as there has been no compliance of the provisions of Section 27 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, This section provides as follows: