High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2011
      Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12524 of 2001 (4) dt.18-08-2011




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    Criminal Miscellaneous No.12524 of 2001
                   ======================================================
                   Dinesh Prasad Singh                        .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                   State Of Bihar                     .... .... Opposite Party/s
                   ======================================================
                                                      with
                                        Criminal Revision No.866 of 2001
                   ======================================================
                   Nand Kishore Prasad                         .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                   State Of Bihar                         .... .... Respondent/s
                   ======================================================
                   Appearance :
                   (In both cases)
                   For the Petitioner/s    : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate
                                               Mr. D. N. Tiwary, Advocate
                   For the Respondent/s     : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
                   ======================================================


              CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE HARMA
                                           AND
                     HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN

                   ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)

4 18-08-2011 Both these cases were referred to the Division Bench by

the learned Single Judge on the issue as to whether the

provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order,

1984 are workable with regard to edible oil on account of non-

definition of different categories of cities.

Criminal Misc. No. 12524 of 2001 has been filed on

behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Prasad Singh challenging the

order dated 28.08.1999 passed in G.R. Case No. 11 of 1994 by

which the Special Judge, Aurangabad has rejected the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12524 of 2001 (4) dt.18-08-2011

application filed on behalf of the petitioner to discharge him for

the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 7 of

the Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 414 and 120B

of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the case are that First Information

Report was instituted alleging therein that the informant

suspected that mustard oil was being sold in the black market.

On the basis of the aforesaid suspicion, the shop of Ravindra

Prasad @ Munna and Vikash Keshari were searched and 20 &

25 tins of mustard oil were recovered from their shops

respectively.

Criminal Revision No. 866 of 2001 has been filed on

behalf of the petitioner Nand Kishore Prasad for setting aside the

order dated 11.10.2001 passed in G.R. Case No. 10 of 1996 by

which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has

dismissed the discharge application filed on behalf of the

petitioner.

Briefly stating, the allegation is that the shop and

godown of the petitioner was searched and rice, pulses, sugar,

washing powder and 05 quintals of edible oil were seized by the

Officer-in-charge of the Aurangabad Town Police Station. It is

alleged that the petitioner was unable to produce the license
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12524 of 2001 (4) dt.18-08-2011

showing him to be a retail or wholesale dealer of the items so

seized.

The question raised in the above two cases have been

decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.

33926 of 2002 vide order dated 29.07.2011 wherein the Division

Bench has relied upon another Division Bench decision passed

in Criminal Misc. No. 1045 of 1987, wherein it has been clearly

held as follows:-

“It has been settled by this Court that if A Class and B

Class Cities are not defined the Unification Order in relation to

edible oil will not be workable. It has been also stated by a

catena of decisions of this Court that when the Unification Order

is not workable, the persons cannot be prosecuted for violation

of its provisions.”

Considering the two aforesaid orders of the Division

Bench, this Court quashes the impugned orders dated

28.08.1999 passed in G.R. Case No. 11 of 1994 and 11.10.2001

passed in G.R. Case No. 10 of 1996.

These two applications are accordingly allowed.



                                                                        (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J)


Prabhakar Anand/-                                                         (Sheema Ali Khan, J)