IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45262 of 2007 RAM DARESH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 22.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 18.8.2007 as also the entire proceedings against him in Parihar PS Case No. 38/2007 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The informant, Incharge BDO Parihar, PS Kuchaikote, District Gopalganj alleges that the petitioner was a PDS dealer Incharge for distribution of rice under the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana. His shop was inspected on 1.4.2007at 10 A.M. when it was found closed. Peeping through the window the informant saw that there was no stock inside the godown. The petitioner had lifted rice which was not available in his godown and neither had he submitted a report with regard to its distribution. He had therefore committed the offence of black- marketing. The godown was sealed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the supervising authority at Para 38 of the case diary had recommended submission of a report of mistake of fact on the allegation. Noticing which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in ABP No. 225 of 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. Contrary to the same chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. Learned Counsel contends that in fact no inspection of the petitioner’s premises were carried out and the food grains are in fact available in his shop which are matters available in the case diary as noticed in the order of anticipatory bail itself. That the inspection carried out was with regard to another shop when the allegations are against the petitioner which are again all materials from the case diary noticed in the order of anticipatory bail. Though an order of anticipatory bail shall have no relevance for the purpose of quashing, this Court considers it prudent to rely upon the materials therein with regard to the case diary, rather than to summon the case diary for the purpose of this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The materials from the case diary forming part of the order sheet of the court can therefore easily be relied upon at this stage. This Court finds the nature of the allegations peculiar. A government functionary goes to raid the shop. He finds the shop locked. In exercise of his statutory duties instead of breaking open the shop in accordance with law he peeps through the window to reach his conclusions. To the common mind, this is an extremely peculiar way to discharge government duty and lodge an FIR on that basis. Either the FIR was lodged deliberately in that manner so that questioning the FIR shall become easier or the FIR was lodged to implicate the petitioner. This Court however considers it prudent not to record any finding on this aspect of the matter at this stage as that will necessarily have to be the subject matter of a disciplinary enquiry. On the facts of the case, considering the allegations in the FIR and the materials in the case diary, discussed above, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the prosecution of the petitioner. The entire prosecution of the petitioner in the case as referred to above is hereby quashed. The application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate Sitamarhi. This Court requires him to hold an administrative enquiry in the nature of the FIR lodged and then proceed under the civil and/or criminal law, as the case may be, with regard to all concerned and take the matter to its logical conclusion. Let him file an affidavit of such compliance within a maximum period of three months when this matter shall be placed under the heading ‘For Orders’. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)