Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38827 of 2011 ====================================================== Parash Nath, Son of Late Saryug Ram, Resident of Mohalla Galla Mandi Mirganj, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 3 29-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who is armed with carbon copy of the case diary up to paragraph – 49 dated 27.03.2011. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] , Section 16 (i) (a) (B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 62/63 of the Copy Right Act, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. Petitioner is one of the named accused in this case and as it is pointed out on his behalf one application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing A.B.P. No. 729 of 2011 was preferred before learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, who without going through and examining the application on its merit, dismissed the same, holding that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon rather only Special Judge constituted under Essential Commodities Act or this Court has any right to entertain the application relying upon decision of this Court in case of “Baldeo Prasad alias Baldeo Prasad Versus State AND Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38827 of 2011 (3) dt.29-02-2012 2 / 3 2 Gurudeo Ram Versus State reported in 1986 Bihar Law Judgments 54”. It is submitted that true it is, earlier by Act No. 18 of 1981 for a limited period, Special Courts were constituted being presided by Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge to trial the case under Essential Commodities Act and so long such Courts were functional in view of powers exercised by them being at par with Sessions Judges. It was the Special Courts entitled to entertain the applications of bail, regular/anticipatory and demand etc., and thereafter, the High Court deciding the aforementioned case. Similar was the point raised and it was held that only specially constituted Courts or this Court is entitled to adjudicate upon the matters involved. At the same time, it is equally important to mention that such Special Courts were constituted only for limited period and after expiry of the same, i.e., on expiry of fifteen years such Courts having no authority are defunct and original power to deal with the cases under Essential Commodities Act is restored to the Court of Magistrate. In this regard, a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of “State of Tamil Nadu Versus Paramasiva Pandian reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 15” may also be referred. On going through the above submissions supported by enactment and decisions, it is evident that learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the prayer of the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on its merit. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate all his points before Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38827 of 2011 (3) dt.29-02-2012 3 / 3 3 the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj by filing application afresh within four weeks from today and court below will decide the prayer on its own merit at the earliest. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner till first hearing by the court below. Praveen-II/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 471

Statute Text:
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.