Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4198 Jhar

                                    1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          Cr. Revision No. 763 of 2012

         1. Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Sao
         2. Naresh Saw
         3. Shyam Sunder Thakur           ...     ...    ...     Petitioners
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                 ...    ...     Opp. Party
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

         For the Petitioners        : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
                                      Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party         : Mr. P.D. Agawal, A.P.P.


7/16.11.2021

1. Pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2021, notice was issued to the legal heirs of deceased petitioner No. 3 namely Shyam Sundar Thakur through the concerned police station. As per the records of this case, a communication has been received from the Sub Inspector, Dhansar police station that the notice has been served upon the legal heirs of deceased petitioner No. 3. However, nobody has filed any such petition.

2. Considering the fact that the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- has also been imposed upon original petitioner No. 3 (since deceased), appropriate order will be passed in connection with the fine amount at the time of final disposal of the present case. Office is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 3 from the cause title.

3. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate on the merits of the revision petition.

4. Heard Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cognizance in the case was taken under Section 414 as well as Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, vide order dated 20.08.2008, but by order dated 31.07.2009, trial under Section 414 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act were separated and the present case is related only to the trial under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned

counsel submits that there is no material on record to indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated and the punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is consequent upon violation of one or the other Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned counsel submits that the condition precedent for convicting the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has not been brought on record and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this court [2012) (1) Eastern India Criminal Cases 367 (Jhr.)] (Susharma Singh Munda versus State of Jharkhand) to submit that even an F.I.R. was quashed by this court on the ground that there was no disclosure in the F.I.R. as to what provision of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated. Learned counsel submits that neither any F.I.R. nor during investigation, nor during the evidence of any of the witnesses, it has been substantiated as to what provision/ Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State on the other hand does not dispute the fact that the records of the case do not indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated. The learned counsel submits that appropriate order may be passed considering the materials on record.

7. Arguments concluded.

8. Post this case for judgment on 10.01.2022.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/