A.K. Trivedi, J.-Petitioners who happens to be employee of M.P. Udog Limited (Sugar Cane Mills Branch) and who have been added as an accused of Majhauli P.S. Case No. 30 of 2005 registered under Sections 420, l20-B of the I.P.C. and 7 of the E.C. Act have filed instant petition of writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the Manjhauli P.S. Case No. 301 of 2005 along with whole prosecution connected there with along with an ancillary relief coming out therefrom.

2. Umesh Kumar Bharti, Cane officer, Bettiah filed written report in accordance with direction of the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah alleging inter alia that during cane crushing year 2005-06 cane growers of different village, namely, Parmanand Yadav, Sidheshwar Mishra, Satendra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep Kumar Giri, Anil Kumar Pandey, Manju Ram, Shekh Lal, Md. Hakim, Sunil Singh, Subodh Singh, Baidhnath Singh, Shayamakant Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Tripathi, made claim over which the District Magistrate, West Champaran had entrusted inquiry, to him. During conduction of the inquiry, he along with Assistant Yugul Kishore Prasad had gone to Barna village and inquired about measurement. During said course they have found bungling at large scale. The C.O., Majhauli had also filed his report. Again on 25.12.2005 he along with Yugul Kishore Prasad and Ali Hasan Devan had gone to different reserved village and took statement of witnesses. From their statement it is evident that there was wrong measurement of the land as well as the chalans were being sold at rupees nine hundred to twelve hundred per hect and three hundred to four hundred for per tyre. The Mill Administration has issued receipt for three tyre an acre fixing yield at 60 quintal per quintal has against its real production to be 200 to 250 quintal, The aforesaid written report also contains different annexures. Such as statement of the witnesses, inquiry report etc.

3. Contention on behalf of the petitioners are that none of the sections where under case has been registered is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Because of the fact that there has not been violation of any order attracting application of Essential Commodity Act and in likewise manner there happens to be no deception to attract Section 420 of the I.P.C. Therefore, institution of case under Sections 420, 120-B of the I.P.C. as well as Section 7 of the E.C. Act is not at all permissible.

4. It has further been submitted that instant case has been registered by the person who was himself responsible for implementation of the scheme as provided under Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. Also submitted as per Section 12 of the Act there happens to be provision for appointment of Cane Commissioner while Section 13 deals with appointment of Cane Officer. Sub-sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of Section 13 happens to be the duties to be performed by the Cane Officer. It is evident from the averments of the written report that whatever irregularity has been alleged, those were to be dealt with by the Cane Officer on its own level more particularly the sub-section 5(e), sub-section 7(1) and only to shed his own fault on account of non-discharging of function allotted to him, got a false report submitted followed with institution of the instant case. Also submitted that under Chapter IV, as per Section 27 of the Act, the factory was required to furnish details of requirement for the relevant crushing year and in the aforesaid background the Cane Commissioner was required to declare particular area in consonance thereof as reserved area in accordance with Section 31 of the Act and during said course, the objections if any, raised was to be dealt with at its level and the same was to be notified under Official Gazette in accordance with Section 32 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of the aforesaid section prescribes for entering into an agreement with the cane grower while Section 33 prescribed or purchase of cane grown