Basudeo Modi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. ordern.n. tiwari, j.1. in this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the chief judicial magistrate, koderma in jainagar ps. case no. 35 of 2002, whereby, cognizance of the offences under sections 304-b/34, ipc has been taken against the petitioners.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the court below has mechanically passed the said order without application of mind. though there is no sufficient material making out a prima facie case against the petitioners for taking cognizance of the said offence against them.3. mr. atanu banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submitted that the court below has acted legally and has applied its mind properly and there were sufficient materials on record which prima facie make out the case under the aforesaid sections of the indian penal code.4. after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records. i find that order of the court below is based on materials and the same is not unfounded. however, this court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, cr pc cannot go into sufficiency or insufficiency of the materials for constituting the offences and that too in a case falling within the provisions of section 113-b of the evidence act. in that view, the impugned order of the court below cannot be held vitiated.5. i, therefore, find no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. however, dismissal of this application shall not prejudice the merit of the petitioners' case in course of trial in the court below.