IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37460 of 2010 Pintu Kumar Yadav @ Pintu Kumar, son of Nagina Yadav, resident of village-Rahui, P.S.-Rahui, District-Nalanda. ………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------------ 3 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner along with Santosh Kumar who happens to be a P.D.S. Dealer and in the aforesaid background their shops were raided by the Block Supply Officer and subsequently the prosecution was launched on the ground that there happens to be violation of Essential Commodities Act as well as attracts different sections of Indian Penal Code, whereupon investigation commenced and charge sheet was submitted followed with summoning of petitioner along with aforesaid Santosh for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(b) of the I.P.C., 7 of the E.C. Act vide order dated 13.09.2010 passed by C.J.M, Nalanda at Biharsharif which happens to be under challenge. Relying upon 1996(1) Bihar Law judgment, page 525 (Ganesh Prasad Karn Versus The State of 2 Bihar), 2007(3) P.L.J.R., page 367 (Rabindra Kumar Choubey Versus the State of Bihar), it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the trial of petitioner could not be clubbed along with any of the provisions of Penal Code (Summons Trial, Warrant Trial, Sessions Trial) on account of presence of Section 12(AA) of the E.C. Act which prescribes summary trial and in the aforesaid background, the prosecution of petitioner can’t be held legally maintainable, so far offences under I.P.C. is concerned. With regard to application of Section 7 of the E.C. Act, it has further been submitted that there is no disclosure either in the written report or collected during course of investigation disclosing which of the rules / circulars / letter / order has been violated. So submission is that mere presence followed with seizure of the grains from the shop of petitioner who admittedly happens to be the P.D.S. dealer can’t drag him to instant legal prosecution. So submitted that the order of cognizance is fit to be quashed. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the submission submitted that presence of wheat and rice in another bag than supplied by the Department is indicative of the fact that with malafide intention petitioner had exchanged the bag so that it 3 would be siphoned in black market. From bare perusal of the case diary as well as the materials available on the record, it is evident that the prosecution could not be able to bring on record which of the orders/ circular/ provision of E.C. Act has been violated, as no irregularity has been disclosed. So far application of remaining sections of Indian Penal Code is concerned, apart from the decisions cited on behalf of petitioner, the prosecution also failed to place whether there was any shortage or there was any kind of misappropriation committed by the petitioner. Apart this it also appears from the order impugned that the learned Lower Court without going through the materials available in the case diary, passed the order impugned in mechanical way. In the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing further proceeding of instant case will be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the same is set aside to the extent of interest of petitioner consequent thereupon petition is allowed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)