JUDGMENT
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by Shri R.R Verma, 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Hatia P.S. Case No. 96 of 1998 by which the learned Special Judge took cognizance for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner.
2. The prosecution case in brief, as alleged that the informant along with the police party raided the shop of the petitioner on 25.9.1998 in the absence of the petitioner. It is further alleged that 56 bags, 60 kgs. and 7 bags of wheat and 4 bags of sugar were found in the shop. Accordingly the seizure list was prepared and the first information report was lodged. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the shop in question does not belong to the petitioner rather it belonged to one Bandhu Kachhap. Upper Dungri village which will be evident from the seizure list. The said Bandhu Kachhap had filed a petition for release of the articles and the said articles which were seized have also been released in
favour of Bandhu Kachhap by the order of this Court in Cr. WJC No. 156 of 1999 (R). It is also argued that though the petitioner is a licensee but his shop is situated at village Dungri whereas the shop of Bandhu Kachhap is situated at Upper Dungri which was raided at the relevant time and the petitioner has got no concern with the shop from where the said articles said to have been seized.
3-A. It is further argued that the Special Judge took cognizance dated 29.9.1999 when he has no power to deal with the cases under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. As the Act 18 of 1981 is not in existence and the said Act was in existence for a period of 15 years which has been ended in the year, 1998. Special Judge was designated in the said Act by virtue of insertion of Sections 12A and 12-AA in the E.C. Act. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is fit to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned APP contented before me that it is true that the articles seized have already been released in favour of Bandhu Kachhap by order passed in CWJC No. 156 of 1999 (R).
5. No doubt Act 18 of 1981 has already expired. It is also evident from the order passed in Cr. WJC No. 156 of 1999 (R) that the said articles alleged to have been seized have already been released in favour of Bandhu Kachhap who claimed to be the owner of the said articles. It is also apparent that the articles seized from the shop situated at Upper Dungri village whereas the petitioner was possessing licence in respect of village Dungri. The petitioner does not claim the ownership of the said shop as well as the articles. Thus it is clear that the prosecution as made out against the petitioner-is misconceived and without any basis. The petitioner was also not present at the relevant time. Hence the order dated 29.1.1999 taking cognizance is liable to be quashed.
6. Having regard to the above facts and circumstance coupled with the discussions made above, I find merit in this application which is accordingly allowed. The order dated 29.1.1999 taking cognizance against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
7. Application allowed.