Dhanbad v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 691 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 691 of 2021 Nimai Chandra Dey @ Nimai Ch. Dey, aged about 40 years, s/o Late Umesh Dey, R/o Ankhdwara Tola, Brindawanpur, P.O.- Nirsa, P.S.- Nirsa, (Kalubathan O.P.) Dist.- Dhanbad ........Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pratiush Lala , Adv. : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathan) P.S. case no. 113 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1319 of 2020, whereby and where under learned JMFC, Dhanbad has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad. 3. The brief facts of the case, is that the police received secret information that the petitioner is assisting in concealment of the stolen property, obtained by the misappropriating the food grains under the Food Safety Act by not giving the food grains to the selected beneficiaries under the said Act and was selling the same in black market. The police party on reaching the place of occurrence, found the godown of the petitioner, locked form outside and in presence of all concerned, lock of the godown was opened and rice stacked in 129 plastic bags were found in the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 691 of 2021 godown. The same was seized and upon submission of the written report, Nirsa (Kalubathan O.P. ) P.S. case no. 113 of 2020 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and learned JMFC, Dhanbad also took cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, files the certified copy of the charge-sheet with the authentication fees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 7 of the E.C. Act envisages the punishment for violation of control order promulgated under Section 3 of the E.C.Act but neither the petitioner has violated any control order nor there is mention of any control order of being violated by the petitioner, hence, the offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C.Act is not made out against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the portion of the order so far as the it relates to the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C.Act be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Special PP, fairly submits that there is no allegation of any control order having been violated by the petitioner and learned Spl. PP also does not know as to which control order has been violated and fairly submits that in absence of any violation of control order, the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is not made out but he further submits that so far as the offence punishable under Section 414 of the IPC is concerned, the same is very much made out as all the essential ingredients of the said offence are present in the allegations made in the FIR, the case diary, and the charge-sheet, hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad for having taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Cr.P.C., hence it is submitted that the cognizance order so far as it relates to Section 414 of Cr.P.C. ought not be interfered with. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to 3 Cr.M.P. No. 691 of 2021 mention here that the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 414 of Cr.P.C. are:- (i) the subject matter of the of the offence was stolen property; (ii) the accused assisted in concealing or disposing or making away with such property. 8. It is a settled principle of law, that it is not necessary for a person, to be convicted under Section 414 of Cr.P.C., some other person must be traced out for being convicted for the offence of committing theft. The prosecution is simply to prove that the property recovered is stolen property and that the accused extended help in concealment and disposal of the same, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Ajendra Nath vs State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 170. It is also pertinent to refer to Section 410 of the IPC which reads as under :- 410. Stolen property.—Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which 411[* * *] 412[* * *] criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”, 413[whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without 414[India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property. (Emphasis supplied) The plain reading of the section 410 of the IPC makes it abundantly clear that the property which has been criminally misappropriated is also a stolen property. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, of assisting in concealment and disposal of the food grains, which had to be distributed under the Food Safety Act, which has been obtained by criminal misappropriation, hence, under such circumstance, this Court do not finds any justifiable reason to interfere with the portion of the order by which, the cognizance in respect of the offence punishable 414 of the IPC has been taken by the learned Magistrate but so far as the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 is concerned, certainly, in the absence of any allegation of violation of any control order, the 4 Cr.M.P. No. 691 of 2021 offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is not made out. Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathan) P.S. case no. 113 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1319 of 2020 is quashed in part, so far as the it relates to the cognizance taken in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but the said order, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC is maintained.
Decision
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 12th February, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)