- (1.) THIS Criminal Revision application is directed against the order impugned dated 4.8.2010 passed by Sri. S.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Dhanbad in G.R. No. 551 of 2000 arising out of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2000 by which the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge was rejected and they were called upon to stand charge for the alleged offence under sections 467/ 468/471/419/ 420/ 379/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE informant, Officer In-charge of Nirsa police station narrated interalia in his self statement that he along with other police officials in the night intervening 17/18-1-2000 and 1.2.2000 intercepted four trucks loaded with steam coal and the drivers of the respective trucks produced the coal challans and transport challans duly issued by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. THE informant gathered from the challans that coal were purchased by the various firms viz.Arbind Coke Industries,Satya Enterprises, Manoj Industries and Anand Glass Industries and it were being transported to its works situated at various places in U.P and Bihar. THE informant verified the existence of such firms on telephone and gathered that some of the firms were not at all in existence and therefore, he instituted a case against as many as 10 accused persons including the petitioners. Various documents produced by the drivers of the trucks all the four trucks and the coal loaded thereon were seized to which seizure list was prepared. THE truck drivers were arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. The learned counsel Mr. A.K. Das under instruction of Mr. Prabir Chatterjee advancing his argument submitted that the petitioner No.1 Uma Agrawal @ Uma Agarwal wife of Satya Prakash Agarwal resident of Jiwni Mandi,Agra was the proprietor of M/s Satya Enterprises whereas the petitioner No.2 Manoj Kumar Sharma @ Manoj Sharma was the proprietor of M/s Manoj Industries and both had purchased coal from the Eastern Coalfields Limited against the valid documents and challans which were produced before the informant by the drivers at the time of interception of the trucks and seizure of coal etc. It was admitted fact and the informant had conceded in his self statement that the documents produced by the drivers of the respective trucks were genuine and relying upon such documents and the self statement of the informant coal were released in favour of the petitioners under the orders of the court. On similar facts and situation the co-accused Mukesh Chandra Bansal had preferred Cr.Rev. No. 1029 of 2009 before this Court against the order calling upon him to stand charge. However, upon hearing the counsel for the parties the revision was allowed and the co-accused Mukesh Chandra Agrawal was discharged. Advancing his arguments Mr. A.K. Das submitted that there was no restriction at all on the movement of coal and at the same time there was no regulatory provision under the 'unification order' in respect of coal since 29.4.1992.It was suspected by the informant that the coal in question were being carried to be sold in the black-market which also did not attract the offence for which the FIR was lodged and it was not the allegation that the documents produced by the truck drivers were forged and fabricated and not genuine. The Eastern Coalfields Limited having been satisfied with the existence and having linkage of coal with M/s Satya Enterprises and M/s Manoj Industries both situated at Agra alloted coal to their works and the Eastern Coalfields Limited had no grievance against the petitioners. The defence of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this court in Cr.Rev. No. 1029 of 2009 which was pronounced on 15.4.2010 relying upon the decision of Babloo Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2003(3)JCR 144(jhr).
(3.) THIS Court in the case of Maa Chhinnamastika Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. andOrs Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2001(1)JLJR 80 held that after deletion of 'coal' from the Bihar Trade Articles(Licence Unification)Order 1984, regulatory provision no longer existed in respect of coal. Neither the consumer nor the dealer, therefore, could be subjected to any regulatory provision and the industrial units were entitled as a matter of right to purchase and require the coal to the extent of consumption as per their own assessment. The coal having been deregulated, the State authorities having divested of any authority to monitor the operation of the industrial unit, had no jurisdiction to ask the Coal Company to suspend the supply of coal to one or the other party.It would be relevant to mention from the plain reading of the self statement of the informant that physical verification was made with respect to existence of Satya Enterprises at Hathras and Manoj Industries also situated at Hathras at U.P.However, it was gathered that though Satya Enterprises was in existence at Hasayan, Hathras Aligarh in the State of U.P but it was closed much ago. No physical verification report was brought on the record with respect to existence of Manoj Industries at Hasayan Hathras.I find from the entire facts and materials on the record as also the decision referred to herein before that the defence the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by this court in Cr.Rev. No. 1029 of 2009 delivered on 15.4.2010 and I find that no offence is attracted against any of the petitioners much less the offence as alleged in the FIR and the chargesheet was submitted without ascertaining the factual position and following the legal propositions. In the circumstances, this Cr. Rev is allowed and the petitioners Uma Agrawal @ Uma Agarwal and Manoj Kumar Sharma @ Manoj Sharma are discharged from the criminal liability in Nirsa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2000 and the order impugned dated 4.8.2010 by which their petition for discharge was rejected is setaside.;