Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1505 of 2007 Madhabananda Bhuyan …. Petitioner Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 16.08.2022 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been field by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure-3) in G.R. No.144 of 2006 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar on the grounds stated therein. 3. As it appears, the FIR was lodged on 24th February, 2006 vide Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.37(19) of 2006 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle in question was not plying on the road and it was at a garage and although initially the allegation was for carrying 30 liters of kerosene in that vehicle but subsequently, in // 2 // Page 2 of 2 the charge-sheet, it was mentioned as 40 liters instead, considering which, the claim of the State is proved to be totally a falsehood and therefore, the order of cognizance under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is required to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State justified the impugned order under Annexure-3 on the basis of materials on record. 6. Whether the vehicle was plying on the road or inside a garage is a disputed question of fact so also the quantity of kerosene transported in that vehicle at the relevant point of time. Taking into account the FIR and the facts alleged therein, the Court finds that a prima facie case under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner. The contention that the alleged vehicle bearing Registration No.OSJ-1827 was not plying on the road and the quantity of kerosene allegedly transported was found 30 liters instead of 40 liters are disputed facts which can be well addressed by the learned court below during enquiry and trial. In other words, on such a ground, this Court cannot exercise the inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the order of cognizance. 7. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all such plea at the time of framing of charge before the court below which shall consider it on merit and pass appropriate order as per law. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K.Sahoo