Bijay Kumar Nishad v. … Opposite Party WITH Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2016 --------- Shital Das The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 214 of 2016 --------- Bijay Kumar Nishad ... … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus ... … Opposite Party WITH Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2016 --------- Shital Das The State of Jharkhand ... … Petitioner Versus ... … Opposite Party ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Petitioners --------- : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Verma, A.P.P. : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Amicus Curiae --------- 05/17.07.2023 Heard the parties. 2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of same impugned judgment passed by Sri Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, accordingly, both these criminal revision
Decision
applications are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The petitioner, Bijay Kumar Nishad in Cr. Revision No.214/2016 and petitioner Shital Das in Cr. Revision No.211/2016, have filed these criminal revision applications against the judgment dated 11.12.2015, passed by Sri Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2011, passed by Sri C.B. Singh, learned A.C.J.M., Seraikella in G.R. Case No.145/2009, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.13/2009, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- for the aforesaid offence, in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I. for three months. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Ranjeet Narayan Singh, who was Block Supply Officer, Seraikella, alleging therein that on 04.03.2009 at about 1:15 PM, he seized -2- a pick-up van bearing registration No.JH-06B-0352 loaded with Blue colour Kerosene oil. It is alleged that Blue colour Kerosene oil was controlled commodity, which was to be sold under Public Distribution Shop and it is not available in the open market. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 6. Ranjeet Narayan Singh P.W.1 is the informant of this case. He has supported the allegation as made out in his written report. He has stated on 04.03.2009, 200 liters of Blue colour Kerosene oil were recovered from a pick-up van. Seizure list was prepared by him. He has further stated that Blue colour Kerosene oil is not available in the open market. He has been cross-examined at length. 7. Other prosecution witnesses have supported the factum of recovery of Blue colour Kerosene oil from the pick-up van as stated by the informant. 8. From the perusal of the seizure list, it appears that 200 litres of Blue colour Kerosene oil were recovered from the pick-up van bearing registration No. JH-06B-0352. 9. Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the informant was not authorized at the time when the occurrence had taken place to institute F.I.R. under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was further submitted that State Government had issued notification on 18.09.2013, in which District Supply Officer is authorized to institute a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is evident that at the time of institution of the F.I.R. in year 2009, the informant was not authorized to institute the present F.I.R. under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 10. Mr. P. D. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that from plain reading of the F.I.R. and statement of witnesses recorded during the trial, it is apparent that the present case has been instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, without stating as to what provision under Section 3 of the said Act was violated. It was further -3- submitted that if in the First Information Report or for that matter during the trial, if this fact is not brought on the record then the entire prosecution case is bound to fail. It was further submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not come to any finding as to which provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated. It was also submitted that while recording the statement of the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no question was put to them on this point. Reliance has been placed upon decision of this Court in the case of Susharma Singh Munda Vs. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2012(1) East Cr. C 367 (Jhar), wherein the entire prosecution case was quashed only on the ground that there was no disclosure in the First Information Report regarding the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was violated so as to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 11. In view of the non disclosure in the First Information Report and the evidence of the witnesses regarding the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was violated so as to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , I am of the opinion that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous fining regarding guilt of the petitioners. 12. Both these Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. 13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 14. Before parting I would like to report my appreciation for Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.7,500/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by him. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-