The dropping of confiscation proceeding does not bar the criminal case to proceed, and delay in prosecution after a long period may not be proper.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The sole petitioner, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Patna registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act vide Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) PS Case No. 93 of 1993, corresponding to Special Case No. 26 of 1993. At the time of admission of the present case i.e. on 17.1.1996, it appears that sole ground for quashing of the entire prosecution was taken that after dropping of the confiscation proceeding in relation to the same occurrence whether criminal proceeding can be allowed to further proceed. The present petition was admitted by this Court by its order dated 17.1.1996. In view of the question raised by the petitioner, the single Bench of this Court referred the matter to Division Bench. While referring the case to Division Bench, this Court further directed that "in the meantime, further proceeding in Special Case No. 226 of 1983 arising out of Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) PS Case No. 93 of 1993 in the Court below shall remain stayed."

2. Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in first paragraph of the petition, there was a typing error and as such instead of typing Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) PS Case No. 93 of 1983, it was incorrectly typed as 93 of 1993.

3. Subsequent to reference the matter was heard by a Division Bench. However, in view of difference of opinion between two Judges, the matter was referred to the Full Bench and finally the matter was heard and decided by judgment and order dated 14th September, 1993 passed by Full Bench of this Court. It has been, held by the Full Bench that merely dropping of confiscation proceeding will not be a bar to proceed with the criminal case. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the single Bench for deciding the case on its merit.

4. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that apart from the ground which was earlier taken on other grounds also the prosecution in Special Case No. 26 of 1983 is liable to be set aside. He submits that there was special provision for obtaining sanction in respect of an offence relating to display of stock and price position in the shop premises. However, on the other allegation, he does not dispute the prosecution in the present case.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that merely non-production of stock register to the competent authority may not be considered as an offence as has been alleged in the FIR. On these grounds, he has made a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in the present case. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that on the ground of delay, the prosecution is also liable to be set aside. He submits that in the case, it was alleged that offence was committed in the year 1983 and as such after expiry of more than 26 years, it would not be proper to direct the petitioner to face the peril of trial for the said charge.

6. I have perused the petition also. In paragraph-12 of the petition, it was categorically stated that since last twelve years no progress has taken place in the case and only thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State.