The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accused of selling rice and wheat in the black market and held that the Block Supply Officer, who had instituted the FIR, had never been authorized by the State Government at the relevant time and thus had no such authority to make search and seizure and thereby any search and seizure made by the Block Supply Officer would be quite illegal.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed to quash entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner after an FIR was registered against him he was accused of selling wheat and rice in the black market during a raid in his godown.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner had purchased the wheat and rice from the trading company on different dates and further produced cash memos in support of his arguments. It was further submitted that the Central Government by virtue of Clause-14 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has repealed the earlier orders issued by the State Government and, thereafter, the State Government has not issued any fresh order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and further the competent authority has not lodged the FIR as the Block Supply Officer has lodged the FIR and he is not authorized by the State at the relevant time.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner may face the trial.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the Central Government by virtue of Clause-14 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has repealed the earlier orders issued by the State Government and thereafter the State Government has not issued any fresh order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and further the criminal proceedings come under the purview of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and reference has been made to Clause 10 of the said Order which relates to the power of search and seizure.
Further, the court referred to Clause 2 and Clause 10 and stated that an authority defined under Clause 2(c) of the Order has to be authorized by the State Government in terms of Clause 10 of the Order and stated that the Block Supply Officer, who had instituted the FIR, had never been authorized by the State Government at the relevant time.
Further, the court referred to the judgment in Krishnapada Aich Vs State of Jharkhand wherein it was held that “In absence of any denial that the Block Supply Officer has never been authorized by the State Government, a plea of the petitioner has to be accepted that Block Supply Officer had no such authority to make search and seizure and thereby any search and seizure made by the Block Supply Officer would be quite illegal. Furthermore, the case lodged on the basis of such search and seizure certainly gets vitiated.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Krishna Prasad Sah vs State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 495 of 2009
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
