IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28532 of 2009 Krishna Nandan Sahu, S/O-Late Sheonandan Sahu, resident of village- Ramnagar Lagma, Hemjapur, P.S.-Dharhara, District-Munger ………Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …………..Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. N.K. Agrawal (Sr. Advocate) Mr. D.N. Tiwari Mr. Saket Tiwary Mr. Anujit Sinha For the State :- Mr. Bishweshwar Ram (A.P.P.) 03 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenged the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 173 of 2008 by which he took cognizance for the offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of written report of Block Supply Officer, Munger Nagar Parishad, above stated Kotwali P.S. Case No. 173 of 2008 under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner alleging therein that on 29.05.2008, the house of one Arbind Kumar was raided and in huge quantity i.e. 90 quintals rice kept in 180 jute packets were recovered from a godown situated in the house of Arbind Kumar. On query, the aforesaid Arbind Kumar disclosed that the aforesaid godown belonged to petitioner. The above stated bags contain tags of NAFED KANSAL FOOD PRODUCT F.C.I., Sambalpur P.B.C. Rice. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is 2 that petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer since the year 1981 and up-till-now no complaint has been made against him by his any consumer. It is further contended by him that there is no control on storage of rice and, as a matter of fact, the control on rice has already been decontrolled in the year 2002 vide Notification No. G.S.R.-02 dated 12.10.2002. It is further contended by him that according to prosecution case itself, the above stated seized rice does not belong to the article of public distribution system and, therefore, in the light of aforesaid notification of Government, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed any offence even if, it assumed that the aforesaid seized rice belongs to the petitioner though it is specific case of the petitioner that neither aforesaid godown nor the seized rice belongs to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned order but he could not succeed to controvert the above stated contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, in huge quantity rice was recovered from a godown which is said to have belonged to the petitioner but admittedly, the control on storage of rice has already been lifted vide notification as stated above and furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution that the seized rice belong to the article of public distribution system. Therefore, in my view, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that no offence under the provision of 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is made out against the 3 petitioner because there is no violation of any control order. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.07.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 173 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed. In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed of on admission stage itself. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court for needful. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)