- (1.) THROUGH this writ application extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Doranda (Argora) P.S case no.268 of 2009 (G.R.No. 2902 of 2009) instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and also for release of the commodities seized from the flour mill of the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that the informant, the Marketing Officer, Ranchi, when raided the flour shop along with other officers, they found 29 quintals of wheat in the shop of the petitioner, out of which 5 quintals of wheat was found kept in the bags having marking of F.C.I and hence, a case was lodged on the premise that those bags of wheat meant for the distribution among the beneficiaries under the scheme known as B.P.L and Antodaya have been kept for selling it in the black market. On the written report submitted before the Officer -in -Charge, Doranda, Doranda(Argora) P.S. case no.268 of 2009 was instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the day, i.e. on 13.7.2009 when the raid was laid in the flour shop of the petitioner, 29 quintals of wheat was admittedly found stored in the shop but storage of that quantity of wheat does not make out any case under the Essential Commodities Act as on that day, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. of wheat was in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that though the State of Jharkhand had issued an order prescribing storage limit of different commodities including wheat but that order relating to storage limit was in force for the limited period and on the day when the raid was laid, the said order relating to storage limit was not in force. In this regard it was submitted that even if it is assumed that the order relating to storage limit of the commodities including wheat was in force, storage limit of the wheat for the retail shop dealer is prescribed as 50 quintals, whereas, according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 29 quintals of wheat only and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have kept wheat excess than the storage limit and as such, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was also submitted that wheat having been found in some of the bags having marking of Food Corporation of India never leads to presumption that the wheat was meant to be distributed under certain scheme, as empty bags having marking of Food Corporation of India is available in the open market and in this view of the matter also, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened any of the provision of the Essential Commodities Act. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, though the State was afforded with the opportunities twice for filing counter affidavit. 10/5/2014 Page 19 Birendra Kumar Singh Versus State Of Jharkhand
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that factual aspect of the matter, upon which the aforesaid submissions were advanced have not been denied and in that view of the matter, it has got to be accepted that on the day when raid was laid, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. of wheat was in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.;