JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution including the First Information Report lodged as Bettiah Mufassil P.S. case No. 40 of 2004 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the District Supply Officer West Champaran, Bettiah, gave a written report to the officer-in-charge of the Bettiah Mufassil Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 23.2.2004 two trucks bearing registration No. BR 28-9859 and BR-06-C-2622 were found infront of the godown of the State Food Corporation at Bettiah laden with 300 bags of rice each. In the report it was further alleged that the rice was brought from Gopalganj and Rohtas for black marketing. In the opinion of the District Supply Officer, instead of the rice being sold to the purchase centre by the farmers, it is being done by the middle men and consequently the farmers are not getting the benefit of the Scheme. On the basis of the aforesaid information Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 40 of 2004 was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that no order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act restricts movement of rice from one place to another and, as such, petitioners cannot be said to have violated any order made under the aforesaid provision to bring the act within the mischief of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 520, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows :-
It is painful to note that the authorities who are the custodians of law and order are not acquainted with the latest position of law. The said Movement Control Order for the violation of which the petitioner has been put to harassment, was rescinded as far back as on 30th September, 1977. In that view of the matter the entire prosecution seems to be without any legal foundation and it is fit to be quashed at this stage.
4. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Tarapado Ghosh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 602, and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 5 of the judgment :–
The Bihar Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 had been in operation for several years but this Control Order was rescinded with effect from first day of October, 1977 by the Central Government’s Notification No. S.O. 696 (E) 30th September, 1977. This fact is accepted by the learned State Counsel. Therefore, admittedly during the time of occurrence i.e. April to June, 1978 there was no Control Order under the Act to restrict the movement of foodgrains from Bihar to any outside place. It follows, therefore, that if pulses were booked from any place in Bihar, which in the present case is Chapra, to any destination outside the State no offence arises on this account.
5. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the petitioners are not being prosecuted for violation of any movement order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act but the case was registered for violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. He points out mat according to the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Unification order, upper storage limit was only 250 quintals but the total weight of the seized rice laden in the two trucks was over 300 quintals. At the same breath he points out that foodgrains has been deleted from the Unification Order vide notification dated 11.10.2002 i.e. much before the date on which the trucks were seized but he contends that the informant did not receive the copy of the said notification and lodged the case bona fide.
6. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Giri and the plea of ignorance put forth by the District Supply Officer is a pretence. From the allegation made in the First Information Report, it is evident that supply is being made at the purchase Cenfes of the State Food Corporation through the middle men and not by the farmers for whom the scheme was launched and this according to the informant constitute offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, when a challenge is made, the plea of the Informant is that due to ignorance under a bona fide belief he got the case registered on the ground of violation of the Unification Order, but later on he came to know that foodgrains have been deleted by notification issued prior to the date of seizure. Thus, whole emphasis of the informant is to show his bona fide in lodging the First Information Report but nothing has been said to demonstrate that the allegations made constitute any offence. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the allegation made does not constitute any offence and hence, prosecution of the petitioner shall be in abuse of the process of the Court.
7. To put the record straight, Dr. Jha, points out that by notification dated 11.2.2002 foodgrains were deleted from the Unification Order but by notification dated 25th of October, 2002 the aforesaid notification deleting foodgrains was modified and foodgrains excluding subsidised foodgrain to be distributed through PDS Shops and Purchase sale as well as storage of foodgrains through Government a/c was deleted. The amendment reads as follows :-
AMENDMENT.-In the above mentioned order, the word and braket (Foodgrains) Excluding subsidised foodgrains to be distributed through PDS Shops and Purchase sale as well storage of fcodgrains through PDS Shops and Purchase, sale as well storage of foodgrains through (Government A/c) used in Schedule I are hereby deleted.
Prior notification may kindly be treated as revised to this extent.
8. He points out that the foodgrains of the Public Distribution System therefore, is covered by the Unification Order. This in no way advances the case of the Opposite party. It is not the allegation that the foodgrain seized from the petitioners is in any way connected or belonged to the Public Distribution System or is from the Government, account. Thus, in my opinion allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute any offence and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is fit case in which jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fit to be exercised to quash the prosecution.
9. In the result, I allow this application quash the entire prosecution including the First Information Report of Bettiash Mufassil P.S. Case No. 40 of 2004.