IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47716 of 2005 ASHRAF ALI, PUPRI, SITAMARHI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 19.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing order dated 13.7.2004, passed in Cr.Revision No. 114/04 by the Sessions judge, Sitamarhi setting aside order taking cognizance dated 21.5.2004, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri in Pupri Police Station case no. 133 of 2003 under section 7 and 10 of the E.C.Act against him and 2 others, while exonerating other accused persons named in the FIR. The petitioner submits that he is a driver of Tata Mini Truck No. BR-16/9842, which was raided and seized unloading wheat for its black marketing which was meant for BPL families. He submits that it would be evident from the case diary that the vehicle was hired for transportation of grains of one Ramadhar Thakur of village Balha who is a farmer having 15 Bighas of land. It has also come in the case diary that the BDO and other officials inspected stock register of two named accused dealers of fair price shops and did not find any discrepancies. Said Ramadhar Thakur has also filed an application before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for release of wheat. During investigation, Secretary of the Agriculture Market Committee has also stated that the said truck had come to the premises for unloading of 132 bags of grain. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has remanded the matter to the - 2 - Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for passing fresh order in accordance with law after perusing the case diary. Learned counsel for the State submits that it would appear from the order of sessions judge that there also was sufficient materials for proceeding against aforesaid two fair price dealers and the Magistrate taking cognizance is not bound by the opinion of police. The learned Magistrate will once again consider the matter afresh after perusing the case diary in light of observation of Sessions judge. In case, the Magistrate finds materials, it would be open to him to take cognizance and summon such person for trial. It will be also open for the petitioner and others to put forth their case. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)