THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SARJU PRASAD AND SRI LAKHI SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the State against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah, by which the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provision of the Bihar Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Sugar Licensing Order) and Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Kerosine Licensing Order) has been set aside. Although the members of the opposite party had also challenged their prosecution for violation of the Bihar Essential Commodities other than Food grains and Rice and Stock (Display and Control) Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Display Order), but their prayer was not allowed as a result of which their prosecution for violation of the Display Order is still alive. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Shri S.A. Khan, Marketing Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah, visited the business premises of the opposite party on 13.2.1981 and in course of inspection a number of irregularities and illegalities, committed by them, were detected. He submitted a report to the higher authorities and thereafter a complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah, on 5.3.1981. Besides other allegations made in the complaint petition, it is stated that the opposite party had violated the provisions of the Sugar Licensing Order. It is also alleged that the opposite party had failed to lift the quota of Kerosine oil allotted for distribution amongst the consumer and thereby violated the provision of Kerosine Licensing Order. After receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 and passed order for issuance of process against them.

(2.) A revision petition was filed by the members of the opposite party in the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah, against the older dated 9.3.1981, which was allowed mainly on two grounds. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party in the court below that the Sugar Licensing Order, 1963 should be deemed to have been repealed in view of provision of clause 17 of the Sugar Control Order, 1966, of the Central Government. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on the case of Sitaram Agrawal v/s. the State of Bihar ( : 1978 CriLJ 42), in which it was held by a learned Single Judge of this High Court that the Bihar Sugar Licensing Order must be held to have been repealed after coming into force the Central Sugar Control Order, 166). On the basis of the law laid down in the said case, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the members of the opposite party could not be prosecuted for violation of an order, which was not in existence and consequently set aside the order of cognizance so far as prosecution for contravention of the Sugar Licensing Order was concerned.

(3.) Mr. Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the case of Sitaram Agrawal was subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in Kashi Prasad Harilalka v/s. the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation Department and others ( : 1981 BLJR 189) and after taking into consideration different provisions of the said two control Orders, it has been held that it was not correct to say that the Sugar Licensing Order of 1963 stood repealed by virtue of clause 17(1) of the Sugar Control Order, 1966. So, the principle laid down in Sitaram Agrawal's case is no more a good law.