Judgment:
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the part of the order dated 16-2-1999 passed in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No, 86 of 1996 by which the matter has been sent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for trying the offence under Sections 407, 411, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by deleting Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. The short case of the prosecution as stated is that on 9-7-1996 after 7 p.m. the informant went to the premises of Hindustan Timber at Kanta Toli and found that the Officer-in Charge had seized 103 quintals and 80 Kilograms of Wheat from Truck No. BIT 841. it is further alleged that 103 quintals and 80 kilograms wheat of Public Distribution System was loaded at Food Corporation of India's Godown, Chutia, in Mini Truck Nos. BIN 9270 and BR-14G-0750 and it was reported that the said wheat was unloaded from the said Mini trucks and it was loaded on a big truck in the premises of Hindustan Timber. On raid it was found that the said wheat was loaded in the two Mini trucks by the Food Corporation of India's Godown at Chutia and the same was handed over to the Drivers for carrying the same to Burmu Block and the said consignment belonged to three fair price shop dealers, namely, Ajit Kumar Sahu, Kuleshwar Sahu and Sukhdeo Sahu of Burmu. The said wheat and mini trucks were seized and, accordingly, seizure list was prepared as well as the First Information Report was lodged. The police submitted charge-sheet after due investigation against the accused-persons including the petitioners.
3. The learned Court below after hearing both the sides deleted Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act finding that the said offence is not applicable in the instant case and by the order impugned, the matter was remitted to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for trial.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act under which cognizance was taken was deleted by the trial Court and the matter was remitted to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for the offences under Sections 407, 408 land 120B of the Indian Penal Code whereas Sections 407 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable in the instant case wheat there was no report about the theft of the said weat. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 (Jitendra Kumar Agarwal) is neither a dealer nor the retail dealer of foodgrains rather he has got a timber business known as 'Hindustan timber' at Kantatoli. The petitioner No. 1 having no concern with the wheat or the truck in question and the Special Judge has wrongly took cognizance for the offences under Sections 407, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that though other petitioners, namely, petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are the dealers having licences but no provision of the licence has been violated by them as well as the wheat has been deleted from Schedule 1. Therefore, no licence is required in dealing with the wheat.
5. It is also submitted that on 9-7-1996 the alleged wheat was loaded by the Block Supply Officer, Burmu, but on the way, one Mini Truck No. BR-14G-0750 went out of order and as such the same was being transferred on a big truck for transporting the same at Burmu as well as the Special Judge has got no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the impugned order is fit to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the learned Special Judge has rightly referred the whole case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial for the offences under the Indian Penal Code after deleting the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is further contended that admittedly, the petitiones Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the dealers under the public Distribution System and the said wheat was allotted to them, but it was taken to the premises of Hindustan Timber without any cogent reason in order to sell the wheat in black market.
7. There is no doubt that the said wheat with two trucks were seized in the premises of Hindustan Timber of which the petitioner No. 1 is the owner. There is nothing cogent reason coming out from the side of the petitioners to show as to what was the reason for taking two trucks loaded with wheat supplied from the Food Corporation of India to the premises of Hindustan Timber and another big truck was also there in which the said wheat was loaded. Apparently, the said wheat allotted to the dealers from the Food Corporation of India's Godown on 9-7-1996 and it was loaded on two mini trucks for transporting to the destination at Burmu. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are admittedly the dealers for the village of Police Station Burmu as indicated in the petition itself. No doubt, there is no report about the theft. But, admittedly the said wheat was allotted in favour of the dealers from the Godown of the Food Corporation of India and, as such, the question of theft does not arise, but unloading the said wheat in the premises of Hindustan Timber itself makes suspicion and for which there is no cogent explanation. Thus, I find that the Court below has rightly referred the matter to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and, accordingly, this application is dismissed.
9. However, the petitioners may raise all those points before the Court below at the appropriate stage of trial.