Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.C. Mishra - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2003 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, in G.R. Case No. 1 of 1999, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a short compass. A seizure of large quantity of rice was made on 25.2.1999, by the Supply Inspector, Chakradharpur, in the presence of S.D.O., Porahat at Chakradharpur, from the house of the petitioner MD. Rabbani. It appears that the portion from where the seizure was made, was rented to the petitioner Santosh Kumar Chaurasia @ Kallu Chaurasia and it was the petitioner Santosh Kumar Chaurasia who had stored the rice. Alleging that the petitioners were not having the license for dealing in the food grains and were storing the rice beyond the storage limit, the police case was instituted on the basis of the written information given by Supply Inspector, Chakradharpur, On 27.2.1999, being Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 1 of 1999, for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and investigation was taken up. It appears that after investigation of the case, charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 19.7.1999 passed in G.R. No. 1 of 1999 the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Chaibasa, took cognizance of the said offence against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to this application.
(3.) THE petitioners had challenged the said order taking cognizance in Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, in Cr. Misc. No. 5974 of 1999 (R) which was however permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 17.12.1999, giving the petitioners the liberty to raise their point at the appropriate time, in view of the ground taken by the petitioners that no case was made out against them. Subsequently, the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa, which has been challenged in this application. It may be pointed out that a separate confiscation proceeding was initiated with respect to the seized rice in this case, which was dropped by order dated 43.2000 passed by the Collector, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 98 -99.;