SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Pat) 2

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Mithilesh Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the F.I.R. of Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 56 of 2007 dated 10.8.2007 registered under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

3. The allegation is that the petitioner was diverting some of the foodgrains received under BPL Scheme, to a separate godown for the purpose of black- marketing. It has further been alleged that the foodgrains in question bears F.C.I. mark and stitches on the cover of the bag.

4. The learned counsel assails the F.I.R. as well as the seizure on the following grounds. The first ground is that a dealer is an agency of the Government and as such exempted from prosecution under Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Unification Order, 1984). In this respect he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in case of Arun Kumar Paswan reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 33. He submits that the authority has not pin pointed the specific provision which has been violated.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation disclosed in the F.I.R. would constitute offence und





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top