- (1.) This is an application for quashing the order dated 12.01.2009 passed by learned C.J.M., Deoghar in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 331 of 2008 ( T.R. No. 1229 of 2009) whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act.
(2.) It is alleged that on 01.05.2008 at about 4.05 p.m. a raid was conducted in the fair price shop of petitioner no. 2 Dular Manjhi situated at village- Pathri under Jamua Panchyat in the district of Deoghar and it was found that the shop of petitioner no. 2 was closed. It is further alleged that out side the shop a notice board was hanged but in the said notice board no description was given regarding the storage in the godown. It appears that the raiding party went in the courtyard and say in side and shop and found that the same was empty. It is alleged that on 30.1.2008 petitioner no. 2 lifted 3.68 quintals of wheat, 5.76 quintals of rice ( supposed to be distributed amont the BPL persons) and 6.73 quintals of wheat and 17.81 quintals of rice ( supposed to be distributed under the Antyodaya scheme), from the State Food Corporation, Deoghar. It is alleged that the said articles sold in the black market. It is further alleged that on the same date at about 5.30 p.m. a raid conducted in the fair price shop of petitioner no. 1 Biseswar Mandal situated at Kharagdiha, Panchyat Jamua in the district of Deoghar and during the said raid, the shop of the petitioner was found closed. However, the same was opened by his son. On physical verification, no articles found inside the shop though petitioner had lifted 10.73 quintals of wheat and 28.43 quintal of rice (supposed to be distributed among BPL persons) and 6.55 quintals of wheat and 10.24 quintals of rice (supposed to be distributed under the Antyodaya scheme) from the State Food Corporation, Deoghar. Accordingly, it was presumed that he sold those articles in black marketing. During the raid, it was also found that on the notice board, no description regarding the storage of articles lifted for distribution had been mentioned. It appears that on the basis of said allegation, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 instituted and police took up investigation. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet under section 7 of the E.C. Act, whereunder it is mentioned that petitioner has violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( License Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Public Distribution System ( Control) Order, 2001. Accordingly on submission of charge sheet, learned CJM, Deoghar took cognizance of the offence by passing the impugned order,which has been challenged in this application.
(3.) It is submitted by Sri B.M. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that impugned order is illegal because in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, it has not been mentioned that petitioners violated provisions of which Control Order promulgated under section 3 of the E.C. Act. In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Govind Mahto & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand,2003 4 JCR 630, Amit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, 2005 1 EastCriC 65 and Arun Kumar Singh & Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand,2012 2 EastCriC 360.;