IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21903 of 2007 BINOD KUMAR SINGH @ BINOD SINGH, Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Karbighia, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna ------ -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ---- ----- Opp.Party ----------- 3 01.10.2008 Heard Sri N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is one of the named accused of Special Case No.3 of 1994, arising out of Jakkanpur P.S.Case no.24 of 1994, has filed this application for quashing the order dated 31.8.1999, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (herein after referred to as “E.C. Act” ) has been taken by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Patna ( Urban) and is presently pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna . Briefly stated the prosecution case, inter alia , is that on 9.2.1994 an inspection was made by the Supply Inspector along with other officials of the business premises of the petitioner and in course thereof it was found that the opening balance of different commodities as displayed on the Display Board varied from the total quantity of food grains, sugar etc. as was available in the business premises. The Munshi on demand of relevant documents was unable to produce the same. It is also alleged that on completion of inspection, food grains , pulses , Sugar and edible oil which were - 2 - found stored in the business premises , was seized by the Supply Inspector and on the basis of the aforesaid seizure , the prosecution report was lodged alleging that the firm carries on business without having a valid licence. The stock of edible oil was found stored without having licence and on physical verification of the stock displayed on the Display Board, shortage and excess of the stock were found. It was alleged that the business was being run in contravention of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification) Order,1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Licences Unification Order”). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence in the case took place on 9.2.1994 and the cognizance thereof was taken on 31.8.1999 i.e. after an expiry of 5 ½ months and as such, the entire prosecution was barred by limitation as at the relevant time the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act ,1981 was in operation , according to which maximum punishment provided under Section 12 AA thereof was two years , and as such, cognizance taken after expiry of period of three years is barred under Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the case of Deven Mandal Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 729. It was also submitted that the cognizance as taken in this case by the Special Judge, E.C. Act on 31.8.1999 was also bad and illegal since after July, 1998, the Special Judge was not empowered to take cognizance relating to offences under the E.C. Act. On this premise, it is submitted that the entire proceeding from taking cognizance by the Special Judge and all subsequent proceedings in the case is bad and - 3 - illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Reference in this connection was made to the case of Padma Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 547. The learned counsel further sought to point out that the entire prosecution report is based on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures and in respect of the allegation that the Firm was being run without having a valid licence . It was submitted that the Firm holds a wholesale licence under the provisions of Unification Order bearing Licence no. 25 of 1985 for trade articles, food grains and sugar. It was also submitted that although the said licence was cancelled in the year, 1987, the same was stayed by this Court at the time of admission of Cr.W.J.C.No.546 of 1987 and by order dated 22.6.1993, the order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence was quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner deposited his licence fee for renewal along with the renewal fee in the office of the Licensing Authority where it is still lying for renewal, and as such, it has been submitted that the firm cannot be said to be carrying on business without having a valid licence. In respect of the allegations with regard to edible oil , it was submitted that the provisions of Unification Order has been held to be neither workable nor enforceable in Bihar because of the failure of the State Government to specify the class of Cities for edible oil and several such prosecutions have been quashed by this Court, one of which is Mohan Lal @ Mohan Lal Rajgarhia Vrs. State of Bihar ( Cr.Misc.No.3866 of 2007 ) disposed of on 8.2.2007. - 4 - The learned A.P.P. cut a sorry figure inasmuch as he was not able to refute any of the submissions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly supported by decisions on each issue. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be sufficient force in the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner with which I am in agreement. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Jakkanpur P.S. Case No.24 of 1994 so far as the petitioner is concerned , is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-