Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.764 of 2005 =========================================================== Barun Kumar Singh son of Monoj Mohan Singh, R/O Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar through Secretary Food and Civil Supply, Patna, Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, Patna. 4. The Officer Incharge Mokama, Police Station, Distt-Patna .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Writ No. 980 of 2010 =========================================================== 1. Abhisekh Raj son of Suresh Ram, R/O village Chuharchak, Police Station, Barahiya, Distt-Patna. 2. Jodhi Sah son of Tanik Sah, R/O village Hiranbigha, Police Station, Barahiya, Distt-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar through Secretary Food and Civil Supply, Patna, Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, Patna. 4. The Officer Incharge Mokama, Police Station, Distt-Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. WJC No. 764 of 2005) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondent/s: Mr. Rajive Kumar Singh, AC to AG-8 (In CR. WJC No. 980 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondent/s :Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh, AC to GA-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Both the Criminal Writs originate from same P.S. Case bearing Mokama P.S. No.129/05. As such with the consent of the 2 parties the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 764/2005, Barun Kumar Singh happens to be the petitioner while in Cr.W.J.C 980/2010, Abhishek Raj and Jodhi Sah, happen to be the petitioners and in both Cr.Writs there has been common prayer for quashing of the FIR of Mokama P.S. Case No.129/2005 registered under [STATUTE] and 7 of the E.C. Act. 3. The brief fact of the case as is evident from the First Information Report lodged by Chandrashekhar Kumar Sinha, Inspector, O/C of Mokama P.S. recorded 3.10.2005 disclosing therein that he received confidential information with regard to black-marketing of LPG by a Gas Agency located at Barahiya and for that purpose had parked the vehicle near Britannia gate. Accordingly, raid was conducted. One hundred LPC cylinders were found over the truck out of which 38 was empty while 62 was filled up. It has further been disclosed that on query the driver has disclosed that he had already supplied 38 gas cylinders to the consumers but no document was filed. Accordingly, the matter was reported to the SDM, Barh before whom proper receipts were filed but the same appear to be fake one therefore as per direction instant case has been registered. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that to 3 facilitate smooth delivery of LPG cylinders to its consumers the gas was being transported. Further submitted that from the First Information Report itself, it is evident that none had complained regarding black-marketing. Then, it has been submitted that informant was not at all competent to conduct raid as per Notification issued by the Government and Circulated vide Memo No. 2021 dated 28.7.2005. So submitted that in the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, the search and seizure have been made in contravention of the Notification referred above. Consequent thereupon, the registration of the case followed with investigation is liable for quashing. 5. On the other hand, learned AC to GA-8 has resisted the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the license for transacting and disbursement of LPG cylinders were only confined to Barahiya. Therefore presence of truck having laden with LPG cylinder at Mokama is indicative of the fact that same was taken to that place for the purpose of black-marketing. Therefore, rightly petitioners of both the Cr.Writs were booked. 6. Also submitted that investigation is going on, therefore, for the present petitioners have got no legal ground to raise the plea more, particularly, for quashing of FIR followed with investigation. 7. There happens to be LPG(Regulation, Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 issued in terms Section 3 of Essential 4 Commodities Act, 1955 by the Central Government over affairs of regulating LPG gas prescribing different provisions putting the obligation upon the retailers. Rule-13 thereof prescribes power of entry, search and seizure. For better appreciation the same is incorporated hereunder:- 13. POWER OF ENTRY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE.-(1) Any officer of the Central or the State Government not below the rank of Inspector duly authorized by a general or a special order, by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or any officer of a Government oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer, authorized by the Central Government, may, with a view to securing due compliance of this Order or any other order made thereunder: (a) stop and search any vessel or vehicle used or capable of being used for the transport or storage of any petroleum product, (b) enter and search any place, (c) seize stocks of liquefied petroleum gas alongwith container and/or equipments, such as cylinders, gas cylinder valves, pressure regulators and seals in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been, or is being, or is about to be made. (2) The sales officer of a Government oil company shall be authorized to secure compliance of this Order by the distributor appointed under the public distribution system and/or by the consumer registered by them. 8. After going through the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that Inspector and officia

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.