CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22561 OF 2000 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- 1.B.K.SUREKHA, Senior Executive Vice President, Bharat Sugar Mills Limited, at & P.O.-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalganj. 2.R.G.Shroff, Vice President, Bharat Sugar Mills Limited, At & P.O.-Sidhwalia, Dist.-Gopalganj. 3.Subhash Chandra Srivastava, Cane Manager, Bharat Sugar Mills Limited, At & P.O.-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalgan. 4.G.P.Dhruka @ Ghanshyam Dhruka Occupier, Bharat Sugar Mills Limited, At and P.O.-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalganj. 5.M/s Bharat Sugar Mills Limited, At and P.O.- Sidhwalia, Dist.-Gopalganj, through its Senior Executive Vice President, B.K.Surekha. …… …….Petitioners VERSUS 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Case Officer, Gopalganj. …… …….Opp. Parties. For the petitioners: Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr.Adv. For the State : Mr. Hriday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Petitioners No 1 to 4 are officers of petitioner no.5-M/s Bharat Sugar Mills Limited. All the petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure Code, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 17.05.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in G.C. No. 3 of 2000/Trial No 341 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 13 (8) (9) of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter as the ‘Act’). 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No.2-Cane 2 Officer, Gopalganj filed a prosecution report vide letter No 258 dated 10.05.2000 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on an allegation that the petitioners had violated the provisions contained in Section 13 (8) (9) of the Act, during sugar crushing period of 1999-2000. It was alleged that despite the fact that petitioners’ factory was directed by Cane Officer, Gopalganj vide its Memo No 601 dated 25th November, 1999 that they will lift six lakh quintals sugarcane at Mill Gate Purchasing centre and one lakh quintal sugarcane at Rajpatti Purchasing Centre, the petitioners, in violation of the direction of the Cane Officer- complainant, lifted 11.3 Lakh quintal sugarcane at Mill Gate Purchasing centre and 1.02 lakh quintals sugarcane at Rajaptti Purchasing Centre and, accordingly, the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 52 of the Act. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed and since it was an official complaint, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 17.05.2000 took cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. 2. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 17.05.2000 the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 14.03.2002 while admitting the case, this court issued notice to opposite party No 2 and directed that during the pendency of this application further proceeding in G.C. No. 3 of 2000/Trial No 341 of 2000 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Gopalganj shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. Prior to admitting the case, on 11.09.2001, as per the order of this Court, notice was issued to opposite party No 2 which was duly served. However, none appeared on behalf of 3 opposite party No 2 i.e. Cane Officer, Gopalganj. 3. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order and initiation of proceedings against the petitioners, submits that without any violation a complaint was filed by the Cane Officer in a mechanical way. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to Annexure-5 to the petition submits that opposite party no.2-Cane Officer himself had directed by its letter dated 102 dated 10.3.2000, that no sugarcane should be left and it was directed to lift entire sugarcane in his allotted areas. It was submitted that since at the fag end of the crushing period the opposite party no. 2 had directed to lift sugarcane, there was no reason for the petitioners to leave the same and as such whatever sugarcane was available either at Mill Gate Purchasing Centre or at Rajapatti Purchasing Centre were lifted. So far as instruction contained in Memo No 601 dated 25.11.1999 (Annexure-4) is concerned, it was submitted that direction for lifting six lakhs quintals and one lakh quintal from Mill Gate Purchasing Centre and Rajapatti Purchasing Centre respectively were tentative. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has specifically pointed out the subject mentioned in Annexure-4 which indicates that it was a tentative assessment and as such the petitioners have not committed any violation of the said direction. It was submitted that in absence of violation of direction contained in Annexure-4 to the petition and, that too, if the petitioners acting as per the instruction of the Cane Officer issued vide Annexure-5 to the petition had purchased the sugarcane, it cannot be said that the petitioners had violated any 4 direction. As such, it cannot be considered that the petitioners had violated the provisions contained in Section 13 (8) (9) of the Act. He further submits that besides merit of the case on the ground of pendency of the present case also order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. It was submitted that even for the time being if it is assumed that there were violations of Section 13 (8) (9) of the Act, as per Section 52 of the Act maximum punishment prescribed is, imprisonment for six months and the proceeding was stayed by this Court by order dated 14.03.2002 and proceedings remained pending without any progress for a long time. As such, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the Court below on trivial allegations after such a long delay. 4. Mr Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of petitioners. 5. Besides hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, I have also examined the materials available on record. From Annexure-3 to the petition which is a typed copy of the letter sent by the Cane Officer, Gopalganj to the Cane Commissioner, Patna appears that initially the Cane Offcier, Gopalganj had estimated the purchase of sugarcane by the petitioners at Mill Gate Purchasing Centre was 12.50 lakhs quintals of sugarcane and at Rajapatti purchasing centre 1.25 lakhs quintals of sugarcane. In view of that estimation, if it is seen, it will be evident that sugarcane purchased by the petitioners was within the limit which was recommended by the Cane 5 Patna High Court The 22nd July,2010 Md.S./NAFR. Officer – opposite party no. 2. 6. Without going into the merit of the case, the Court is of the view that in such a situation, it is not required to direct the petitioners no. 1 to 4 who were officers of M/s Bharat Sugar Mills Limited – petitioner no.5 to participate in the proceeding before the Court below in the present case after a long period and, as such, the Court feels that it is a fit case for exercising inherent power of this Court in favour of the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in G.C. No.3 of 2000/Trial No.341 of 2000 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)