Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2527 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Abhay Kumar Son Of Sri Ramchandra Prasad Resident Of Village Lalbag, P.S. Deepnagar, District Nalanda, Proprietor Of Shristi Automatic Rice Mill, Lalbag, Nalanda 2. Bhim Prasad Son Of Sri Jawahar Prasad Resident Of Noorsarai, P.S. Noorsarai, District Nalanda, Proprietor Of Maa Kali Mill, Noorsarai, Nalanda 3. Sunil Kumar Sinha Son Of Sri Raj Ballabh Singh Resident Of Village Raja Bigha, P.S. Chhabilapur, District Nalanda, Proprietor Of Maa Mundrika Rice Mill, Silao, Nalanda 4. Pankaj Kumar Son Of Madan Prasad Resident Of Noorsarai, District Nalanda, Proprietor Of Jyoti Rice Mill, Noorsarai, Nalanda .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Nalanda 3. The District Supply Officer, Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & D. N. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-24 & Bipin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 03-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, who is praying for time to file counter affidavit in the matter, but such prayer is being refused in view of the fact that writ petition was filed on 6.2.2012 after serving a copy thereof on the State counsel on 30.1.2012 so as to enable him to seek instruction in the matter, but even after passage of more than six months of the service of a copy/ filing of the petition, the State counsel has not been able to seek instruction in the matter, as such, the writ Patna High Court CWJC No.2527 of 2012 (2) dt.03-08-2012 2 / 3 2 petition is being disposed of without the benefit of the counter affidavit. 2. Petitioners are the rice mill owners. They have filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order bearing letter No. 125 dated 20.1.2012, Annexure-1 whereunder the District Supply Officer, Nalanda informed the petitioners that they shall not be considered for milling of the Government paddy, as petitioner nos. 1 to 3, 4 are accused in Laheri P.S. Case No. 176 of 2011 dated 11.8.2011 and Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 164 of 2011 dated 14.9.2011, Annexures-2 and 2/1 respectively for the offence under [STATUTE] and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid FIR is only in the nature of allegation and unless the allegations contained therein are proved in trial, petitioners cannot be prohibited from milling the Government paddy, as they are always ready and willing to offer sufficient security for the paddy, which is given to them for milling. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, I am of the view that the allegations contained in the FIR is only in the nature of allegation and unless the allegations are proved either in the trial or in a proceeding conducted after serving Patna High Court CWJC No.2527 of 2012 (2) dt.03-08-2012 3 / 3 3 charge sheet on the petitioners, they cannot be ignored from milling the Government paddy. Accordingly, the impugned order bearing letter No. 125 dated 20.1.2012, Annexure-1 is quashed, however, with liberty to the authorities to serve a charge sheet containing the allegations raised against the petitioners with opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves of the allegations. 5. Until any finding holding the petitioners responsible for the allegations is recorded, in my opinion, petitioners be considered for milling Government paddy provided petitioners furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the authorities, may be District Magistrate, Nalanda. The District Supply Officer, Nalanda may obtain such approval from the District Magistrate, Nalanda. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/- (V.N. Sinha, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.