IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46778 of 2008 SURESH PRASAD, son of Late Rameshwar Sao, village Chongwa, PS Kowakole, District Nawadah – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. 4 13.11.2009 This application has been filed against the order, dated 20.9.2008 passed in Kawakole PS Case No. 32/2008, Tr. No. 2550/2008, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah by which cognizance has been taken under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. An First Information Report was instituted on 18.4.2008 against the petitioner who is a P.D.S. dealer of Kerosene oil in which it has been stated that 55 litres of kerosene oil was found in the shop of the petitioner. At the stage when the F.I.R. was instituted, the petitioner was not able to produce any document which would indicate the status of the stock. However, the petitioner has stated before the Block Development Officer that his licence has been suspended two and half months earlier to the filing of the First Information Report. In the supplementary affidavit counsel fro the petitioner has annexed the order indicating that his licence was suspended. On 9.2.2008 the Subdivisional Officer, Nawada has passed an order that the shop of the petitioner should be tagged with the shop of another P.D.S dealer of the area. No formal order was issued by the Subdivisional Officer directing the petitioner to tag his shop with a particular P.D.S. dealer as a result of which the stock remained in the petitioner’s shop. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts aforesaid it cannot be said or presumed that the petitioner had illegal stock of 55 litres of kerosene oil. There is also no material to show that in fact the petitioner had sold any part of the stock after the cancellation of his licence and as such it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was indulging in black marketing so as to attract the ingredients of section 7 of the Act. In the aforesaid facts this court finds that at most it can be said that the petitioner should have taken some steps to get his stock transferred to another P.D.S. dealer so that the consumers could have got the benefits of purchasing kerosene oil. On the other hand, this court cannot help but observe that it was the duty of the authorities to see to it that the stock of the petitioner was transferred to another P.D.S. dealer so as to benefit the consumers. Accordingly I find that no offence is made out under section 7 of the Act and as such the order, dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawada in Kawakole PS Case No. 32/2008, Tr. No. 2550/2008 is hereby quashed. It will, however, be open to the concerned Subdivisional Officer / Block Development Officer to transfer 55 litres of kerosene oil to an authorized P.D.S. dealer after completing the due formality viz-a-viz the petitioner. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)