JUDGMENT
S.H.S. Abidi, J.
1. The petitioner Surendra Kumar Thakur has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the entire prosecution in connection with the Katras P.S. Case No. 270/83, dated 5-9-1983 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 414, IPC which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Dhanbad.
2. It appears that a report dated 5.9.1983 was registered at the police outpost, Rajganj. P.S. Katras that on 3.9.1983 while the police party was patrolling the S.I. found several trucks loaded with coal. On checking the trucks the coal appeared to be suspictous. The papers which were produced by the driver of the truck showed the material as rejected coal but on seeing the loaded coal it was found that coal was half burnt. On persual of the purchase voucher it appeared that the price of rejected coal was excessive so the coal was taken into possession and kept in safe custody. On 4.1.1983 under the orders of the officer-in-charge, the S.I. police went to M/s Industrial Enterprise from which the driver is said to have taken the coal. In the M/s Industrial Enterprise one signboard of the enterprise was found. There was neither stock number nor licence number mentioned in this premises. No papers about coal not any paper like stock register, sale register or challan were found. 400 Tonnes of coal was found there. The night guard on duty posted there informed that the coal depot belonged to Surendra Kumar Thakur, the petitioner, and that the aforesaid five trucks were loaded from this premises on 3.9.1983. As no licence nor any other valid papers relating to the truck and the coal were found so the truck with the coal was seized. The driver’s statement was recorded who said that the coal was loaded from M/s Industrial Enterprise, Thereafter this prosecution was launched under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 414, IPC and investigation started.
3. The petitioner waited for about over a year and has filed this application on 15.1.1985 in this court. In this petition it has been said that since the Supply Department’s authorities and the police officers were harrassing the petitioner so he had filed a writ application in the Calcutta High Court challenging the provisions of the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956. Colliery Control Order, 1956, and the Bihar Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977. The Calcutta High Court on 7.10.1982 had granted an interim order of injunction as mentioned at page 12 in para (j) of this petition which is as follows:
An injunction do issue restraining the respondents and each of them and/or their servants, agents subordinates and officers from applying or enforcing the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 and/or Bihar Essential Commodities (Price and Stock) Display Order, 1977 as against your petitioner’s or interfering with the business of the petitioners in reliance of and on the basis of provisions of the said impugned order or orders and seizing any stocks goods assets book and papers of the petitioners on the basis of the said orders or otherwise.
4. Further a copy of the order dated 6.1.1984 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, has been filed which shows that the proceedings have been dropped. It has been said that the Calcutta High Court had passed the order of injunction dated 7.10.1982 and so the drawing of the proceeding appears to be in appropriate and unwarranted. The seized stock was ordered to be released to the opposite party and the driver of the truck was also discharged from the onus of his bond. There is nothing on the record to show that this order of the learned Collector dated 6.1.1984 has been challenged before any other appropriate forum provided under the law.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the proceedings, and investigation of the case is bad as there was already an order of in junctiqn passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and further any proceeding in violation of the order of injunction amounts to disobedience of the order of injunction. Next it was argued that the proceedings have already been dropped by the learned Addl. Collector, Dhanbad, by order dated 6.1.1984 so the present proceedings are not maintainable.
6. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 5.9.1983. The police had right to check if the coal concerned was not found to be in accordance with law. But it appears that the order of Calcutta High Court was there and the same order has been shown to the police and the petitioner sent a copy of the order to the autho rities concerned. Further, it appears that investigation has been going from 5.9.1983 and it has been completed till the order of this court dated 23.1.1985 was passed calling for the case diary and staying the proceeding in the meanwhile. From the order dated 6.1.1984 of the Calcutta High Court it appears that the interim order of injunction dated 7.10.1982 has not been vacated. In this view of the matter the present proceeding cannot be said to be maintainable. So long as the order of Calcutta High Court remains there any proceeding or investigation in respect of subject-matter covered by the order is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision showing that the prosecution of the petitioner should have been dropped in view of confiscation proceeding being dropped. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be tenable.
7. In the case of Uttam Chand and Ors. v. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar (1982 Income-Tax Report (133) 909). the Supreme Court dropped the proceedings and passed the following orders at page 910.
Heard counsel, special leave granted. In view of the finding recorded by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on the record that Shrimati Janak Rani was a partner of the assessee-firm and that the firm was a genuine firm, we do not see how the assessee can be prosecuted for filing false returns. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the prosecution.
There will be no order as to costs.
In the case of Ramautar Prasad Kedia v. State of Bihar 1984 B.L.J. 509 where the order of taking cognizance was challenged under Section 482, Cr. PC and the accused were not company within the meaning of Section 10 and there was no charge of false statement, so neither Section 9 or 10 was attracted. Further the accused was found not guilty in confiscation proceedings initiated on the same charge. Therefore, in view of the judgment in confiscation proceedings and a proceeding for cancellation of licence in which also the accused was found guilty, the cognizance amounted to abuse of the process of the court and so the proceedings were quashed. In the case of Jail Prakash Ram v. State of Bihar 1989 Eastern India Criminal Cases 30 (Patt) when the allegations were that the petitioner was carrying on coal business without any valid licence and therefore, he was liable for the violation of the provisions of the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956. A criminal case against him was also registered under Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act). Later it appeared that the learned Deputy Commissioner in the Confiscation Case No. 136 of 1983 had found that there was no contravention of the Bihar Coal Control Orders 1965 and so the prosecution was ordered to be quashed against the petitioner by this court, as there was no chances of prosecution to succeed in the case.
8. Following the above decisions, in this case also it appears that the confiscation proceeding against the petitioner has been dropped by the learned Add. Collector Dhanbad, so the present proceeding against the petitioner does not appear to be maintainable.
9. In the above circumstances, this application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner arising out of Katras P.S. Case No. 270/83, dated 8.9.1983 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 414, IPC which is pending before the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), is Dhanbad is hereby quashed.