IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41470 of 2009 Bhim Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. --------------------- 3. 23.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Bagengola P.S. Case No. 11 of 2008 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, by which whereunder learned S.D.J.M., Buxar took cognizance for the offence under Section 07 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. The fact which lies to file this quashing petition is that Block Supply Officer, Dharampur gave written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Bagengola police station mentioning therein that on 21.03.2008 he got a telephonic message from the S.D.O.,Dumraon to this effect that six hundred liter kerosene oil are being carried in three drums by pick up van bearing registration BR3C-3028 and having got information, he reached Bagengola police station and enquired from the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. He disclosed that the aforesaid kerosene oil had 2 been purchased from the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner and was being carried to the shop of one Jitendra Singh Yadav. Accordingly, the kerosene oil was seized and on the basis of written report of Block Supply Officer, Dharampur, the above stated Bagengola P.S. Case No. 11 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner and two other persons. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and having receipt of the charge sheet and other relevant papers, the learned court below took cognizance, passing impugned order in the manner as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the name of this petitioner has come in confessional statement of co- accused and it is well settled principle of law that confessional statement of an accused has got no evidentiary value. He also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned court below only perused the charge sheet and accordingly, committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioner. To fortify his contention, he referred a decision reported in 1992(1) PLJR 716, in which it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that cognizance was taken by the Special Judge only on the basis of charge sheet without perusing 3 any other document is not valid. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Jharkhandi Upadhayay appearing for the State supported the impugned order. No doubt, after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and two other accused persons and having perused the materials available on the case diary, the learned court below has taken cognizance for the offence. The aforesaid fact is manifest from the impugned order which reads as follows:- vfHkys[k vkjksi i=] okn nSuUnuh dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls vfHk;qDr 1- larks’k dqekj lkg] 2- Hkhe flag ;kno ,aoe 3- ftrsUnz flag ds fo:} /kkjk 07 vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izFke n`"V;k vfHk;ksx curk gSA dkjokbZ djus ds fy, i;kZIr izkjaHe djus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA rnuqlkj laKku fy;k tkrk gSA fnukad 28-10-2009 okLrs mifLFkfrA vfHk;qDrksa ds mifLFfr gsrq lEeu fuxZr djsaA okn fu’iknu gsrq vuq0 u;k0 n.Mkf/kdkjh] cDlj ds lafpdk esa LFkkukUrfjr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA Bare perusal of the impugned order it shows that the learned court below has not only perused the charge sheet but also perused the case diary sent with the aforesaid charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I am of the view that the 4 decision cited on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. So far as this contention that confessional statement of the accused is not an evidence, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid contention may be raise by the petitioner at the time of explanation of accusation against the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself with observation that petitioner may raise all his pleas at the time of explanation of accusation or framing of the charge and if the aforesaid pleas are raised by the petitioner at the appropriate stage, the learned trial court shall consider the aforesaid pleas in accordance with law. Ravi/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)