- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2003. passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, in GR Case No. 2 of 1999, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.
(3.) The facts of the case lie in a short compass. A seizure of large quantity rice was made on 25.2.1999, by the Supply Inspector , Chakradharpur, in the presence of SDO , Porahat at Chakradharpur, from the premises of the Md Arif said Md Arif informed that the rice was stored by the petitioner Raju Agarwal. Alleging that the petitioner was not having the licence for dealing in the foodgrains and was stor- ing the rice beyond the licence be dealing in the foodsgrain and was storing the rice beyond the storage limit, the police case was instituted on the basis of the written information given by Supply Inspector, Chakradhapur on 27.2.1999, being Chakardhapur PS Case No. 25 of 1999, corresponding to GR No. 2 of 1999, for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, with investigation was taken up.;