Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Narain Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93050
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7417 of 2013
Applicant :- Jagdish Narain Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant for challenging the charge-sheet and order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Orai, District Jalaun in Criminal Case No.07 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs. Jagdish Narain Mishra & others, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station- Gohan, District- Jalaun.
3. At the initial stage interim protection has been extended in favour of the applicant vide order dated 06.03.2013 and four weeks time was granted in favour of learned A.G.A. for filing counter affidavit.
4. A very precise counter affidavit has been preferred on behalf of the State which contains only three paragraphs and the entire rebuttal of the stand taken up by the learned counsel for the applicant through the application has been summarized only in paragraph no.3, which is given the full consideration by this Court.
5. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has no concern with the bags of the alleged fair price shop, the applicant is the operator of the fair price shop. 20 bags over which the entire allegation has been put forward belongs to one Dinesh, resident of village Sone Pura and the then SDM, Madhogarh enquired the fair price shop alongwith stock register, wherein no discrepancy has been found and the same was tallied from the stock and the entry of the stock register and there is hardly any allegation against the applicant regarding the black marketing of the commodities, preliminary the license of fair price shop was suspended and after proper inquiry, the same has been restored vide order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28051 of 2008, which is appended alongwith affidavit in shape of Annexure No.4.
6. After careful consideration of the judgment and order dated 30.10.2009, it is crystal clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the lengthy argument raised by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Sate, but observed that learned counsel for the State failed to bring to the notice of the Court any provision either under the Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 or under any other Government Order issued either under the 2004 order or 1990 order empowering the Licensing Authority to cancel a fair price shop agreement merely on account of a dealer being involved in a criminal case.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once adjudication has already been made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court culminated into order dated 30.10.2009 and thereafter the entire bags, for which, the allegation has been fastened against the applicant, has been released by the concerned magistrate in favour of one Dinesh Pandey after being satisfied that the entire commodities not belongs to the applicant. While assailing the charge-sheet No.37 of 2007 preferred on 08.09.2003 in Case Crime No.224 of 2007, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that once it has already been proved that the bags, which were confiscated were not at all belongs to the applicant and the fair price shop, which was earlier suspended has been restored by the judicial verdict rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, there is hardly any case as framed by the prosecution which culminated into charge-sheet which impugned the instant application.
8. Per contra learned A.G.A. relied upon the paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit, which clearly states that the FIR has been lodged at the preliminary stage of investigation in respect of black marketing and the entire narration is closed at this submission only. The counter affidavit preferred on behalf of the State is silent over the issue of restoration of the fair price shop alongwith the release order passed by the learned concerned magistrate in respect of bags, which were indicated as commodity, which has been black-marketed by the applicant, has already been released in favour of its owner i.e. one Dinesh Kumar.
9. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that through the counter affidavit, it is not corroborated the later incidence and it is crystal clear from paragraph- 3 of the counter affidavit itself that the FIR has been lodged at the preliminary stage of inquiry, which culminated into preferring the impugned charge-sheet.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, once the article which has been said to be black-marketed by the applicant, has already been released in favour of its owner, which was decided by the learned concerned magistrate himself and the fair price shop which was suspended over the allegation of black-marketing has already been restored vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2009, there is hardly any scope available to pursue the matter in shape of Case Criminal Case No.07 of 2007 against the applicant and as such, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.07 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs. Jagdish Narain Mishra & others, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Gohan, District Jalaun and the charge-sheet dated 08.09.2003 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 30.10.2007, are hereby set aside.
11. The Application U/S 482 is hereby allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Radhika
