- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 28.4.2012 and 30.6.2012, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 61 of 1980, whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest non-bailable as well as process under Sections 82 and 83 have been ordered to be issued respectively. Further, the order dated 29.9.2012 has also been sought to be quashed whereby permanent warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued and the records have been ordered to be consigned to the records room. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 61/1980 was lodged against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. When, on submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, that order was challenged before this Court in the year 1984 vide Cr. Misc. No. 3414/1984(R). In that case, further proceedings in the Court below was stayed. Ultimately, the case was dismissed in the year 1988, but the records and the orders passed by this Court, was not received by the trial court and, -therefore, the case was adjourned time to time awaiting the records as well as the order of this Court. Ultimately, under the administrative order passed by this Court, records were ordered to be reconstructed. Thereafter, an order was passed on 28.4.2012, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner as according to the Court, presence of this petitioner was required for reconstruction of the records. Thereafter, without having any report relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest, an order was passed on 30.6.2012, whereby processes under Sections 82 and 83 were ordered to be issued against this petitioner and ultimately, without having any execution report either of the warrant of arrest or the processes issued under Sections 82 and 83, an order was passed on 29.9.2012, whereby permanent warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued and the records were ordered to be consigned to the record room. Those orders have been challenged to be bad on the ground that those orders have never been passed in accordance with law.
(2.) I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. From perusal of the records, it appears that without there being service of summon, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued and, thereafter, without there being any report relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 & 83 were ordered to be issued and ultimately, permanent warrant of arrest was issued and, thereby, none of those orders seems to have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the orders dated 28.4.2012, 30.6.2012 and also the order dated 29.9.2012, are hereby set aside.
(3.) In the result, this application stands allowed.;