Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7673 of 2013 ====================================================== Lakshman Yadav, son of late Jagdish Yadav, resident of Village- Bikrampur, P.S. Asarganj, District-Munger Versus .... .... Petitioner/s The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY CAV ORDER 2 16.09.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Asarganj P.S. Case No. 55 of 2011 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. An F.I.R. has been lodged by the Block Development Officer Asarganj stating therein that the petitioner being the Public Distribution System Dealer (hereinafter referred to as „the Dealers) was allotted the food grains to be stocked meant for food for work programme. The petitioner lifted the allotted food grain and the food grains were used against the work, after audit by the approved Chartered Accountant it was found that food grains (rice) of 1723.49 Quintals having total price of
Facts
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7673 of 2013 (2) 2 Rs.23,61,181/- has not been returned by the accused petitioner. The audit report of the Chartered Accountant has been annexed along with the complaint petition. On the basis of evidence on record the court below has taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections.
Legal Reasoning
Committee. This Court in writ petition has not given clean chit to petitioner or others and report will be scrutinized at trial stage and its evidentiary value will also be examined. At the stage of taking cognizance the court has only to see whether prima facie case is made out or not and admittedly there is no dispute that after utilization of the said rice the petitioner was left with 1723.49 Quintals of rice. The defence that he has written a letter for return of rice cannot be seen at this stage and that will be tested at the subsequent stage. This Court is not required to interfere with the order of cognizance and accordingly this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance is bad in law. The petitioner is a Dealer who was to store rice for District Rural Development Authority for distributing the rice through the agent to the labourers under the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna II. The food grains were distributed for food for work along with payment of cash, permits were issued by the Rural Development Authority to the agent who was looking after the work. On the basis of the permit, rice was handed over to the agent and rest rice remained with the petitioner and as per the FIR total rice of 1723.49 Quintals was remained with him after closure of the scheme in 2006 without proper direction what to do with left rice. 5. The said rice remained with the petitioner and after certain time it deteriorated to the extent that it was not fit for human consumption. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had written several letters requesting the authority for return of the rest rice but it was not responded by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7673 of 2013 (2) 3 authority concerned. It has further been submitted that the role of the Dealer under the scheme was that of a store keeper and he could not have sold the rice nor could have utilized it for any other purpose without proper authorization by the competent authority. It has further been submitted that this fact is apparent from the report of the Public Accounts Committee which clearly states that petitioner was not responsible for destruction of rice as it has been found that rice was destroyed on account of inaction of the authority concerned. It has further been submitted that the Dealer including the petitioner had challenged the notices before this Court by which the authority directed the petitioner and others to return the unused rice and this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13676 of 2009 (Yamuna Nayak alias Jamuna Nayak Vs. State of Bihar & ors.), C.W.J.C. No.15648 of 2008 (Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others), C.W.J.C. No.8609 of 2009 (Raj Kumar Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar & ors), C.W.J.C. No.5638 of 2011(Raiful Azam & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and another analogous cases had considered this aspect of the matter and held as follows: “I may observe that even if it is presumed that rice can be sold, it would be impossible to sell the quantity of rice which must have been decomposed by virtue of passage of time at the APL rate. Perhaps, the Secretary may consider retrieving the rice in whatever condition it is from the Public it Distribution System Dealers and deal with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7673 of 2013 (2) 4 accordingly instead of asking the dealers to sell the decomposed rice at the APL rate.” 6. In support of the submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the report of implementation of Samprun Gramin Yojna in the State of Bihar by PRIs to show that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss of rice kept by him as a store keeper. On the strength of the argument learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against him and this Court should interfere in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the First Information Report it is apparent that the food grains meant for food for work programme were lifted and stored by the petitioner being a Dealer and certain rice were utilized and released by him on the permit granted by the higher authority. It has further been submitted that in the writ order no where it has been stated that the petitioner and other Dealers were not required to return the rice but this Court has only given the guideline that the authority should not ask the Dealer to return the money of the rice at APL rate because storing the rice for a long period in natural course, quality of the rice was deteriorated and it can not be kept at par with the fresh rice. From the First Information Report it is clear that the petitioner was to return the rice amounting to 1723.49 Quintals. 8. Having considered the rival contentions of learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7673 of 2013 (2) 5 counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court should quash the order of cognizance on the strength of the order passed by this court in the writ petition and on the strength of the report of Accounts