Back
1989 Supreme(Pat) 381
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Suresh Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1508 of 1987 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 27, 1989
The special procedure for trial of offenses under the Essential Commodities Act requires complaint petitions to be filed by authorized officers, and cognizance taken based on unauthorized petitions is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 12AA - Cognizance of Offence - Complaint Petition - Authorised Officer - Special Procedure - Interpretation and Application.
Fact of the Case:
In several cases, complaint petitions were filed before the Special Judge appointed under the Essential Commodities Act (ECA) by Marketing Officers or Supply Inspectors. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offenses under Section 7 of the ECA against the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint petitions filed by the Marketing Officers and Supply Inspectors were not maintainable as they were not authorized to file such petitions under Section 12AA(1)(e) of the ECA, which requires a complaint to be filed by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in this behalf.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint petitions filed by the Marketing Officers and Supply Inspectors were maintainable? 2. Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses based on the complaint petitions filed by unauthorized officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 12AA(1)(e) of the ECA, which provides for the filing of complaint petitions by authorized officers, and held that the Marketing Officers and Supply Inspectors were not authorized to file such petitions as they were not specifically empowered by the Central or State Government. 2. The court held that the special procedure laid down in Section 12AA of the ECA must be strictly complied with, and any cognizance taken based on unauthorized complaint petitions would be illegal and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications filed by the petitioners and quashed the orders taking cognizance of the offenses against them, as the complaint petitions were filed by unauthorized officers.
1. All these applications involve same question of law and as such they were taken upon of hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In these cases the complaint petitions were filed either by the Marketing Officer or by the Supply Inspector before the Special Judge appointed under the provision of S. 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act (herein after referred to as the said Act). In terms of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act; special procedures have been laid down for trial of case in terms of provision contained in S. 12AA(i)(e) thereof and as embargo has been placed by the Parliament to the effect that no cognizance can be taken by the Court unless a complaint petition is filed by a person authorised by the concerned government in this behalf.
3. In these cases, it appears that searches and seizure of the trade articles involved in the respective case were made by the Marketing Officer and/or Supply Inspector. As indicated hereinbefore the said officers filed their respective complaint petitions before the Special Judge (E.C. Act) and by orders passed in different cases the special judges concerned took cognizance of offence as against the petitioners purported to be u/S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955.
4. Mr. P. D. Aggarwal and Mr. Gopal Chowdhury learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised a short question in support of these applications. It was contended by the learned counsel that the complaint petitions having filed by the Marketing Officer and / or Supply Inspector who were not authorised, therefore, the order taking cognizance passed by the Special Judge, must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Agarwal in this connection, has referred to a decision of this court in V. Satyanarayan V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1988 E.I.C.C. 168; in Seikh Jamaluddin V/s. Md. Allim alias Alimuddin reported in 1988 EICC 152 : 1988 Pat LJR 350 and unreported decision of this Court in Mathura Lal V/s. State of Bihar being Cr. Misc. No. 4004 of 1988 (R) disposed of on 16th Aug. 1989 and a decision of mine in Kamla Singh V/s. State of Bihar being Cr. Misc. No.1486 of 1987 (R) disposed of on 5-10-1989.
6. It was further brought to my notice that by a notification dated 7-7-1987 the Marketing Officers have been authorised by the State of Bihar to file complaint petitions but the Supply Inspectors have not yet been so authorised.
7. Mr. K. K. JhunJhunwala learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that u/ S. 11 of the said Act, a public servant is authorised to file the complaint petition and as in these cases also the complaint petitions are filed by public servant the court concerned was empowered to take cognizance of offence under the said provision.
8. According to Mr. JhunJhunwala this aspect of the matter has been considered by a decision of this court in Nawal Kishore Agarwal V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 1984 Pat LJR 680 : 1985 Cri LJ 254 which has been followed in M/s Manu Lal Sah V/s. The State of Bihar reported in i 985 Pat LJR (NOC) 6(G) : 1985 Cri LJ 260. Learned counsel further submitted that in this view of the matter the order taking cognizance passed by the learned special Judges must be held to be valid u/ S. 11 of the EC Act.
9. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in some of the cases, submitted that u/ cl. 30 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licencses Unification) Order 1984, Marketing Officers, and/ or Supply Inspectors an authorised to make inspection, search and seizure of trade articles and in this view of the matter, there is no reason as to why complaint petition filed by them should not be held to be maintainable.
10. Before proceeding with the rival contentions of the parties, it is relevant to note the designation of the complainant and dates when cognizance was taken by the Special Judge in each case separately which would app
