SHAKILA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant by way of filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has sought to quash the charge sheet no. 115 of 2007 dated 23.9.2007 as well as impugned order taking cognizance dated 4.12.2007, bailable warrant dated 18.02.2012 as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.456 of 2007 under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the applicant was a licensee of fair price shop. Due to certain irregularities committed, a written complaint was made against her to the concerned District Magistrate by the beneficiaries. A preliminary inquiry proceeded against her by the opposite party no.2. It was prima facie found that she had violated the terms and conditions of the license of fair price shop dealership. In this regard, an F.I.R. was lodged against her under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act on 21.8.2007 at Police Station Bhot, District Rampur vide Case Crime No. 456 of 2007 at the instance of opposite party no.2. As usual the crime was investigated, which culminated into submission of charge sheet dated 23.9.2007 against the applicant in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur. The cognizance of offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was taken by the learned Magistrate on 4.12.2007 and it was registered as Case No.4300 of 2007 (State Versus Smt. Shakila). Summons for appearance of the applicant was duly issued and on non-appearance before the court, bailable warrant was issued against her vide order dated 18.2.2012, hence this application.

(3.) It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of Section 12-AA of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Special Judge (E.C.Act) alone was competent to take cognizance. It was further submitted that, therefore, entire criminal proceeding before the learned Magistrate is vitiated by the law and deserves to be set at rest.