IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.946 of 2007 BHOLA MANJHI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 23-9-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed to set aside the order dated 29.6.2007 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in G.R. no. 1857/2006 corresponding to Tr. No. 3531/07 whereby and where under he has refused to discharge the petitioner from the offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that on 10.7.2006 at about 7 AM while the informant Lalbabu Mahto along with Upmukhiya of Karinga panchayat, namely, Sri Tarkeshwar Kumar Yadav and others were taking tea they saw a Thela puller carrying three bags of rice each containing 50 kgs on his Thela. The informant stopped the Thela puller and enquired about the rice who stated that the petitioner had loaded the three bags of rice from his Public Distribution System (in short as PDS) shop. The informant, thus, alleged that the said rice was to be distributed under Aanpurna and Antodaya scheme but the same was going to be sold in black market by the PDS dealer. The informant tried to search the petitioner but could not find him and thereafter he lodged the case before the Chapra Muffasil police station. It appears that the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra by order dated 21.1.2007 took cognizance and transferred the - 2 - case to another court for trial. The petitioner filed a petition u/s 239 of the Cr. P.C praying for discharge but the same was refused and against the said refusal the petitioner has preferred the present application before this court. It further appears that Confiscation case bearing no. 12/2006 was initiated by the Collector, Saran at Chapra in which the petitioner appeared and filed show cause. He did not claim the rice before the Collector. Learned Collector after hearing the parties confiscated the rice vide his order dated 2.4.2007 passed in Confiscation case no. 12/2006. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no material on record to show that petitioner was found selling the rice in black market nor his stock was ever verified and as such no case u/s 7 of the E.C. Act is made out. It has further been submitted that petitioner is a PDS dealer and as such the entire prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law because the same is based upon an application of individual who is not authorized in the eye of law to file a case under the E. C. Act. Section 7 of the E.C. Act is the most important section of the entire E.C. Act and various control orders are issued under it. This section provides for punishment in case of any contravention of either the provisions of the Act or any order issued under it. It is admitted position that petitioner at the time of the alleged occurrence was a PDS dealer. The informant is a private individual. According to learned counsel during the course of - 3 - investigation the shop of the petitioner was never inspected by the police officer. The stock register and sale register of the shop were also not verified by the police. Thus, the position is that there is nothing in the case diary to show that any shortage of rice was found in the PDS shop of the petitioner. According to petitioner’s counsel a PDS dealer cannot be prosecuted u/s 7 of the E.C. Act on the basis of private complaint of an individual. The argument of the learned counsel finds support from a decision of this court reported in 2007 (Supplementary), PLJR, 657, Ramchandra Das vs State of Bihar & another. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and impugned order dated 29.6.2007 is hereby set aside. BKS/ (M. Saran,J.)