IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41161 of 2007 1. REKHA SINGH , W/o Sri Prakash Singh, R/o Dumri Kothi, Ashok Raj Path, District – Patna 2. K.C. Sunny, S/o Sri K.I. Chaku, R/o Nawal Kishore Road, P.S. Kadamkuan, District – Patna. ….. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… Opp. Party. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate D.N.Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. 2 17.12.2008 The two petitioners who are respectively the Proprietor and the Manager of the Firm running in the name and style of “M/s Shekhar & Co.” holding a license for carrying business in whole sale edible oil have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the learned Sub – Divisional Judicial Magistrate, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No582 of 1998, Special Case No. 54 of 1998. On receiving a complaint that adulterated edible oil was being carried on the Marketing Officer, Patna Circle under the directions of the District Magistrate in the company of the Officers of the Civil Supplies Department and police personnel raided the premises of the aforesaid firm and found certain irregularities. Admittedly at the time of inspection petitioner no. 1 was not present and petitioner no. 2, the Manager, who was present on demand produced all necessary documents and assisted the - 2 - authorities in the inspection. The display board was found properly displayed in the business premises. After inspection certain items were found in excess and others in short supply, the details whereof is available in the written report submitted by the Marketing Officer. The authorities also found there was storage of 140 Kgs. Of rice for which no entry was made either in the stock register or the notice board. It was also alleged that fortnightly returns were not being submitted regularly and that on the notice board the selling price of mustered oil was not mentioned. It ha been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that at no point of time was the firm found storing edible oil in excess of the prescribed limit or found selling such oil at a price higher than the price displayed on the notice board and / or printed on the container. It is also not alleged that the firm had ever refused to sell any quantity of edible oil available in the stock to a purchaser. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that on 10.11.1997 the Central Government abolished the storage limit of edible oil by a Gazette Notification. It was also submitted that several Division Bench judgments of this Court have held that the Bihar Trade, Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Unification Order”) is neither workable nor enforceable in the eye of law in relation to edible oil by reason of the State Govt. failing to prescribed the storage limit without defining the class of city. It is also submitted that even if the entire allegation at its face value is accepted as true the same at the best makes out a case punishable - 3 - under section 7 (i) (a) (i) of the E.C. Act which is punishable for one year. I had the occasion to peruse the written report submitted by the Marketing Officer and from the same it appears that the allegations alleged in the F.I.R. do not make out the offence punishable under section 7 of the E.C. Act for the following reasons:- (a) The discrepancy found on physical verification with the stock mentioned in the stock register may be due to various reasons and the discrepancy found is very marginal and negligible in comparison to the stock available in the business premises which would be apparent from the chart prepared and made available in paragraph 6 of the petition. (b) That so far recovery of 140 Kg. of “Kohinoor” brand basmati rice is concerned, it is apparent that the rice was kept in the firm in a pack of half Kg. each under a scheme and was to be given free of cost to the purchaser of 5 ltrs. “sundrop” brand edible oil and it was not kept for the purpose of sale as the firm does not deal in rice or any other food grain. It is asserted that the rice was supplied to the petitioners’ firm by the parent company ITC Agro Tech. Ltd. which was on the verge of collapse. In this view of the mater it was non maintenance of stock register and / or non mentioned of in the notice board so far as it concerned. In this view of the matter non maintenance of stock register and / or non mention of the stock on the notice board so far as rice is concerned - 4 - could not be said to be an offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act. For the reasons stated above the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)