H P DHANUKA (HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Act') are directed against orders passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Ordinance, 1974, for a contravention of Section 39 of the said ordinance,

(2.) It appears from the prosecution report that on the 20th January, 1974 the cane officer of Muzaffarpur inspected the weighment centre at Sitamarhi of the Belsand Sugar Company Ltd., Riga and found that the weighment clerk Hari Shankar Mishra had weighed a cart laden with cane and issued receipt therefore for 18 quintals 75 kilograms. Immediately thereafter the officer got the cart re-weighed to check the weighment with the result that the actual correct weight was 18 quintals 82 kilograms. It is alleged there was thus shortage of 7 kilograms and incorrect weight was recorded and incorrect receipt granted. The officer accordingly got another receipt showing the actual and correct weight issued to the seller. He further found that the weight of the cart was recorded in the aforesaid receipt as 5 quintals 50 kilograms without cart having been weighed after removing the cane load. He also checked the weighment machine at the centre and found that to be correct. Upon these allegations the cane officer submitted the prosecution report and the prosecution was sanctioned by the cane commissioner and a complaint was made against the weighment clerk as also the Manager of the aforesaid Sugar Company and the occupier (the petitioner) and cognizance was taken by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on the 28th of October, 1974. As against this the petitioner has come up in Criminal Misc. No. 3618 of 1974.

(3.) There are similar allegations with regard to an inspection made on the 10th of January, 1974 when the weighment clerk was one Umakant Das. The receipt granted was for 10 quintals 65 kilograms, whereas the correct weight after re-weighment was found to be 10 quintals 74 kilograms and thus, there was a shortage in weighment of 9 kilograms. The officer took similar steps of getting the fresh receipt issued to the seller according to the correct weight. He has also checked the weighing machine and found that to be correct. Accordingly the complaint in this case is directed against the aforesaid weighment clerk and the Manager and the occupier (the petitioner) as in the other case. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on the same date as in the other case.