- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY order dated 30.7.2003, the State counsel was directed to file counter affidavit but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a case under Section 414, IPC was registered against the petitioner and investigation was started and in course of investigation, some stolen articles are said to have been recovered but in course of further investigation, it was found that these articles actually belonged to the petitioner, and as such, the I. O. submitted charge -sheet under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and on submission of charge -sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It was also submitted that the charge -sheet does not disclose what provision of law has been violated by the petitioner and, therefore, the cognizance is bad in law.
(3.) IN this connection, my attention was drawn to the case laws reported in 1978 BLJ 827 (Biswanath Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar) in which it was held that a charge -sheet was submitted under Section 11 of the E.C. Act but it was not specifically mentioned as to what provision of law was violated by the petitioner. My attention was also drawn to the case law reported in 2003 (4) JCR 631 (Rajendra Prasad Paul V/s. State of Jharkhand) in which it has been held that order not disclosing about the violation of the provisions of law. In that view of the matter, no case is made out and the instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid two citations.;