Judgment:
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shreekant Labh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.C. Act') in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2006 and a prayer has been made for quashing of the F.I.R. thereof.
3. The short and pertaining point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a dealer under the Public Distribution System is protected from prosecution under Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and, therefore, his prosecution in the instant case was unwarranted and an apparent abuse of the process of the Court.
4. This aspect of the matter has been considered by various judgments of this Court and one need not recount any of them. The law on this issue is now no more res integra and remains well settled.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State assailing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that under the new Act i.e. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ' the P.D.S. Control Order') the exemption granted to the dealers under the Public Distribution System under Clause 31(2) of the Unification Order has been withdrawn and now even the dealers under the Public Distribution System are amenable to prosecution.
6. The submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P. is based on Clause 16 of the P.D.S. Control Order which provides for exemption. Referring to Sub-clause (iv) which reads : 'Any Central or State Level Co-operative Society (except the P.D.S. shops),' it was sought to be pointed out that P.D.S. shops have specifically been debarred from the exemption.
7. I am unable to accept the submission advanced by the learned A.P.P. since the Public Distribution shop at no point of time can be considered to be a cooperative society run at the Central or State level and courts have repeatedly held Public Distribution shops to be agencies of the government.
8. The other point which goes against the submissions advanced by the leaned A.P.P. for the State is the Hindi version of the Act. Sub Clause (iii) of Clause 16 of the Hindi version reads as follows:
jkT; ljdkj ds vf/kdkjh] foHkkx laLFkk, ;k vU; laxBu vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr ,tsfUl;k
9. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Sachidanand Sinha v. The Collector, Patna 1989 PLJR 1141 and the Division Bench Judgment in Mahabir Flour Mills v. C.C.T. 1987 PLJR 624 that where there is difference in the English and the Hindi text, the Hindi version would prevail, 1 am legally bound to accept and follow the Hindi version and accepting the Hindi version in view of the reasoning assigned hereinabove, the submissions of the learned A.P.P. cannot be accepted.
10. I am unable to accept the submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P for the State. Accordingly the F.I.R. of Panapur P.S. case No. 61 of 2006 being an abuse of the process of the Court is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.