Prabhanjan Kumar @ Prabhanjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Heard the parties. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.08.2010 arising out in complaint case No. 751 of 2009 for offences under section 323, 385, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. From the complaint petition that on 17.03.2009 the complainant was carrying out his wheat and maze grains through his own tractor for selling the same in the market. Accused Nos. 2 to 6 intercepted the tractor and allegation has 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11768 of 2011 (3) dt.11-02-2013 been made that the petitioner No.1 with the help of other accused persons seized the same and the seizure list was prepared. It has been alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 8 have down loaded the grains i.e. wheat and maize from his tractor and kept the same in front of the land of Ramchandra Singh. It has been averred in the complaint petition that the wheat and maize was the personal property of the complainant and wrongly treated the grain was the Public Distribution System. It has been alleged that the reason for the interception of his grain was that they were exerting pressure to execute the sale deed in their favour and if he would agree to execute the same then the grain would be released. It has been alleged that the accused persons assaulted and snatched Rs. 2100/- from the pocket of the complainant by way of rangdari. Panchayati was held. They agreed to hand over the grain within a fortnight and when they have not acted upon the complainant filed the case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a counter blast of the earlier case registered in Katihar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 for the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act where the allegation has been made that the villagers had intercepted the grain which was for the meant of public distribution system and made a seizure of the same. It was alleged in the said first information report that the grain was being sent for the purpose of black marketing . Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Block Supply Officer being authorized to make seizure of the grain which is meant for the P.D.S and he had not acted illegally as he was discharging his official duty. So 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11768 of 2011 (3) dt.11-02-2013 much so he has submitted that there is no allegation save and except in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition about the collusion of the petitioner with the accused no.2 to 6 concerning the seizure of the grain. Counsel for the O.Ps submitted that in view of the allegation made against the accused persons even against petitioner no.1 so much so that the maize would not come in the 7 of the E.C. Act and his action for seizure of the maize itself shows the mind set by the petitioner no.1. He has also pointed out that the petitioner no.1 has also put his signature in seizure list attached to the first information report. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 1988 SC 709, 1991 (2)PLJR 315, 2009 (14) SCC 466 on the point that if the chances of conviction is bleak or prosecution has been filed for oppressive and vicious reason, in these circumstances the court would be justified to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties the counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that the allegations have been made against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 in the complaint petition and in that view of the matter, it will be futile to consider the case in this proceeding. However, they will have liberty to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. So far petitioner no.1 is concerned, he was Block Supply Officer and was authorized to act as an Inspector under the E.C. Act and also authorized to make search and seizure of any premises. But in this case it has to be seen that the seizure has been made of grain such as wheat and maize although the maize does not come under the 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11768 of 2011 (3) dt.11-02-2013 purview of 7 E.C. and petitioner has purposely seized the maize and there is allegation against the petitioner that the action has been taken in collusion with the accused nos. 2 to

6. Counsel for the O.P. no2 has pointed out that the seizure list bears the signature of petitioner no.1 and as such his contention that he was not involved in the seizure of the grain is belied. In this view of the matter at this stage it is very difficult for this court to interfere with the order of the cogniziance. However, the petitioner will have liberty to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. The application thus disposed of. M.Rahman/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)