CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13243 OF 2001 With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10966 OF 2003 ------ In the matter of applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- BACHCHU VAJPAI @ BIJAY KUMAR VAJPAI son of Pradhan Vajpai, resident of Binodpur Aryara Chowk, P.S. and District-Katihar …… ……Petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.13243/2001 RAMJEE BHAGAT son of Govind Bhagat, resident of Village- Balu Tola, Fasia, P.S. and District-Katihar ……. …….. Petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.10966/2003 Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……. …….Opp. Parties in both the cases. -------- For the petitioners : Mr.N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Advocate Mr.Anujit Sinha For the State : Mrs.Veena Rani Prasad, A.P.P. in Cr.Misc. No.13243/2001 For the State : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. In Cr.Misc. No.10966/2003. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as both the cases arise out of Katihar P.S. Case No.179 of 1991. 2. In both the cases prayer has been made to quash an order dated 15.1.2001 passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Katihar. in Katihar P.S. Case No.179 of 1991(G.R. No.595 of 1991). By the said order the learned Special Judge, E.C.Act has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases. The case was instituted vide Katihar P.S. Case No.179 of 1991 long back on 20th March, 1991 on an allegation of commission of 2 offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act. It was alleged that the petitioner Ramjee Bhagat in Cr. Misc. No.10966 of 2003 had purchased seven bags of wheat from petitioner Bachchu Vajpai @ Bijay Kumar Vajpai in Cr.Misc. No.13243 of 2001. It was alleged that the petitioner Bachchu Vajpai @ Bijay Kumar Vajpai was not having any licence and he had unauthorisedly sold the wheat in question to petitioner Ramjee Bhagat for the purpose of black marketing. On the aforesaid allegation, a first information report was lodged. After investigation charge sheet was submitted about after six years from the date of registration of the first information report and the Special Judge, E.C.Act by order dated 17.3.1997 took cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act and the matter remained pending for several years and finally by the impugned order i.e. order dated 15.1.2001 the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners of both the cases were rejected by the Special Judge, E.C.Act Katihar in G.R. 595 of 1991. Since in the present cases order was passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C.Act even after Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, 1981 had come to an end long back on 8.7.1998, on the ground of jurisdiction itself, the order of rejection of petition for discharge was required to be set aside keeping in view the fact that in similar circumstance number of cases relating either order of cognizance or order of rejection of petition for discharge passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act has been set aside by this court and remitted the matter back to the concerned court i.e. C.J.M./S.D.J.M. to proceed with the case afresh, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases instead of setting aside 3 Patna High Court The 1st September,2010 Md.S./NAFR the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the court concerned this court is inclined to quash the entire prosecution so far as petitioners are concerned. At the time of argument, it was submitted by Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that even at the time of lodging of the first information report storage limit was upto thirty quintals whereas in the present case it was only seven bags of wheat and, as such, no offence was made out. 3. However, without going into the merit of the case and keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending for an allegation of sale/purchase of seven bags of wheat, this court is inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the entire proceedings so far as petitioners are concerned in G.R. No.595 of 1991 arising out of Katihar P.S. Case No.179 of 1991 are hereby set aside and the petitions are allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)