Rakesh Jaiswal @ Bablu Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5053 Jhar

                                                       1                 Cr.M.P. No. 236 of 2021


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 236 of 2021
             Rakesh Jaiswal @ Bablu Jaiswal, Son of Kalika Prasad Jaiswal, aged about
             57 years, resident of Mohan Niwas, Main Road Boddom Bazar, P.S. Sadar,
             P.O. & District- Hazaribag                           ... Petitioner
                                        -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party

                                             -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                               -----

             For the Petitioner                : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-State      : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, S.P.P.
                                               -----

06/13.12.2022. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR being Katkamdag

P.S. Case No.103 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.3491/2017, registered

for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the court of the

learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribag. Subsequently, charge-sheet has been

submitted and cognizance has been taken on 27.01.2021 against the

petitioner, which was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.1996 of 2021

praying therein amendment in the petition, which was allowed by this Court

vide order dated 14.07.2022. Thus, the cognizance order dated 27.01.2021

is also under challenge in this petition.

3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant, Block Supply

Officer cum Block Development Officer, Katkamdag submitted a typed report

to Officer In-charge, Katkamdag Police Station alleging therein that on

01.12.2017 at about 12:30 hours, he received information about illegal

storage of food grains in a house of village Pasai. After receiving the

information, he inquired about the same from nearby persons and it came

to the knowledge that the house owner stored the same by purchasing from

different PDS dealers and market also. Thereafter, he sealed the house of

one Ganesh Saw and seized a truck bearing registration No. JH-02AF-9939

loaded with 140 bags of rice and sent the same to police station. It was

further alleged that the house owner Ganesh Saw disclosed that he gave his

house to Bablu Jaiswal, resident of Mohan Talkij, Hazaribag, who deals in

rice business.

4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Rakesh Jaiswal having GSTIN

20AHYPJ4268LIZT and he is engaged in business of food grains. He further

submits that the petitioner has taken house of Ganesh Saw on rent for the

purpose of Godown for storage of food grains. The petitioner has purchased

400 bag each containing 50 Kgs of rice from Saraswati Traders, Main Road,

Kendua, Nawada, Bihar vide invoice no.504/2017-18 on 27.11.2017 for

Rs.4,30,000/- which was transported on truck bearing registration No. BR-

27B-6350. He submits that there is no storage limit of rice and which

control order has been violated, is not disclosed in the FIR and it has also

not come in the charge-sheet and the learned court while taking

cognizance, has also not taken care of as to which order made under

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, is violated. In that background,

he submits that the entire proceeding is bad in law and the petitioner is

unnecessarily being harassed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the

State submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned

court has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioner. He further

submits that this Court may not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds

that admittedly the allegation is made that the petitioner has stored illegal

food grains in the rented house of Ganesh Saw. Looking into the entire

materials on the record including the order taking cognizance, it would not

transpire that which order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act

has been violated. Prima facie, it appears that there is no limit of storage of

rice. Moreover, the documents on record suggest that the rice in question

was purchased by the petitioner.

7. Identical was the situation in the case of Susharma Singh Munda

v. State of Jharkhand in W.P. (Cr.) No.18 of 2011; [2012 (1) East

Cr. C 367 (Jhr)] and considering entire aspects of the matter, the

coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceeding. Moreover, in

that judgment the learned Single Judge has been pleased to direct to

communicate that order to the Law Secretary, Government of

Jharkhand who may place the same before the appropriate Secretary

of the Department so that in future, proper care is taken while lodging

the FIR under the provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by

the officers and guilty persons may not be spared because of the lapses

on the part of the officers. In spite of that, it appears that the

Government of Jharkhand has done nothing and the cases are being filed

mechanically.

8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceedings including the FIR being Katkamdag P.S. Case No.103 of 2017,

corresponding to G.R. No.3491/2017 and the cognizance order dated

27.01.2021, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribag are,

hereby, quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/