IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15239 of 2008 NAND KISHORE PATHAK @ MUNNA PATHAK & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ------------ 03. 01.03.2011 The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.01.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 115 of 2006. The accusation in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the raid was conducted in the godown of F.C.I. at Samastipur wherein, on the northern gate of the godown a truck bearing No. WB-23-2344 was parked for unloading the rice. Upon enquiry being made from the truck driver no papers were produced. The F.I.R. was lodged in the anticipation that the rice was being unloaded in order to misappropriate the subsidy which ought to have been given to the farmers. Consequently 300 packets of rice weighing 135 quintals were seized. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that F.I.R. has been lodged on speculation of misappropriation of the subsidy on the rice meant for the farmers. Moreover learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the accusation - 2 - made in the F.I.R., it does not appear that there is any violation of the control order and unless any violation of control order is found, no case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is made out as held in the case of Nakul Chandra Banerjee and Ors versus State of Bihar reported in 1970 P.L.J.R. 431. It is further submitted that the State Government vide letter No. 5468 dated 10.12.2005 issued direction with regard to giving minimum support price to the farmers. Clause 3 of the said letter reads as follows :- 3. lfefr;ksa }kjk fdlkuksa ls U;wure leFkZu ewY; ij /kku dk Ø; fd;k tk;sxk rFkk fd; fd;s x;s /kku dh dqVkbZ dj rS;kj pkoy ,oa /kku dh vkiwfrZ fuxe ds Ø; dsUnzks ij dh tk ldsxhA lfefr;kWa fdlkuksa ls pkoy dk Hkh Ø; dj fuxe dks vkiwfrZ dj ldsxh ftlds fy, lfefr;ksa }kjk fdlkuksa dks ,oa fuxe }kjk lfefr;ksa dks Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr pkoy ds nj ij Hkqxrku fd;k tk;xkA Hkkjr ljdkj ds miHkksDrk ekeys, [kkn ,oa ukxfjd vkiwfrZ foHkkx (QwM ,.M iCyhd fMfLVz~C;w’ku) Hkkjr ljdkj ds irzkad 192(16)@2005 fnukad 16 +11 +05 }kjk lk/kkj.k ,oa vRre pkoy ds nj ,oa vU; Items of Incidentals dk Hkh fu/kkZj.k fd;k - 3 - x;k gS A lkexzh dkWeu xzsM , Vjok 1015 +25 1063 +88 Mluk 1007 +43 1054 +89 mDr irz dh izfr lqyHk izlax gsrq layXu gS A mDr irzksa ds micU/kksa ds O;kid izpkj dh O;oLFkk dh tk, rkfd d`’kdksa dks ;kstuk dh lgh tkudkjh izkIr gks lds A It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by supply of the rice to the F.C.I., it can not be said that it is the violation of the instructions issued by the Government or these instructions form part of the control order, hence an offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is not made out. The question of committing offences under Sections 420 and 414 I.P.C. are also not made out since the petitioners claim the rice to be their own and the F.I.R. does not reflect that there is any accusation that the rice, in question, was a stolen commodity. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to the effect that the matter has not progressed after cognizance level. - 4 - Prima facie, from perusal of the F.I.R., it does not appear that any control order has been violated. Moreover there is no accusation with regard to cheating as no complaint has been lodged by any farmer that his subsidy amount has been misappropriated nor any such complaint has been made by the F.C.I. Moreover it is not alleged that the rice in question was a stolen commodity. For constituting an offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C., it is necessary that someone dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable or any thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security but in the present case on the basis of seizure of rice without ascertaining the value of the seized grain, the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. has been inferred. It is settled law that violation of any instruction does not constitute any offence under Section 7 of E.C. Act unless some control order is violated but in the instant case the violation of instruction is also speculative. Hence, in view of this Court, no prima facie case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act as well as Sections 420, 414 of the I.P.C. is made out. Accordingly the - 5 - order of cognizance dated 20th of January, 2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, including the entire prosecution with regard to the petitioners, in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 115 of 2006, are hereby quashed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)