IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17748 of 2001 RAMDEO SAH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners: Shri Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ------- 3/ 18.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been summoned for standing trial for committing offence under section 414 of the IPC and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. One hundred bags of sugar were found stored in the house which, admittedly, belonged to the petitioners. The informant of the case, who was the Supply Inspector of Navgachhia, conducted a raid and seized the bags of sugar and lodged a report alleging that those were properties of theft which had been brought from some government godown and the sugar belonged to the Supply Department. As may appear from some part of record of investigation, it was ultimately found out that one hundred bags of sugar were authorized to be lifted by one Jawahar Bhagat who had transported it from Katihar to Navgachhia because the dealers found it very difficult to bring a few bags of sugar from Katihar for distributing it to the consumers of Navgachhia block. Authorization was shown to the police and the police found it correct. The police also found it correct that it was not a property obtained in theft nor could there be any violation of any order duly promulgated under section 3 of the 2 Essential Commodities Act, as such, had submitted a final report disclosing mistake of fact. But, the learned A.C.J.M., Navgachhia, vide his order dated 22.12.1999 took cognizance of the offence as indicated above and summoned the two petitioners who were the land lords of the building from where the bags of sugar were seized. Considering the above facts, the court finds that the whole exercise of taking cognizance, summoning the petitioners and initiating a proceeding against them, is an abuse of the process of the court. The same is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)