1994 Supreme(Cal) 28

High Court Of Calcutta
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee
KALLOL KUMAR MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CRI. REV.  2  Of  1991
Decided On : 01/21/1994

Cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of a charge-sheet filed after the expiry of the period of the investigation prescribed under section 167(5) without any order from the Magistrate and the proceeding based on such cognizance is bad in law.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - OFFENCES - COAL - DIVERSION OF COAL TO A DIFFERENT DESTINATION - WHETHER AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7(1)(A)(II) OF THE ACT - INVESTIGATION - COMPLETION WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD - SECTION 167(5) CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION - COGNIZANCE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF CHARGE-SHEET FILED AFTER EXPIRY OF PERIOD - VALIDITY - SEIZURE AND ARREST BY CISF OFFICERS - WHETHER VITIATES THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING.

Fact of the Case:

In two different cases, coal was being transported from collieries in Bihar to West Bengal. The coal, which was soft coke coal, was being diverted to a different destination than what was mentioned in the relevant documents. The CISF intercepted the trucks carrying the coal and produced the accused and the trucks before the police. The police registered FIRs and submitted charge-sheets under various provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act.

Finding of the Court:

1. The diversion of soft coke coal, which had been decontrolled by government notifications, to a different destination did not constitute an offence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act or section 8 of the Act. 2. The provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 did not override the decontrol notifications issued by the government. 3. The charge-sheets submitted under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act were liable to be quashed. 4. The investigation in one of the cases was not completed within the period prescribed under section 167(5) Cr.P.C. and no permission was obtained for continuation of the investigation beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted after the expiry of the prescribed period was bad in law and the proceeding was liable to be quashed. 5. The seizure and arrest by CISF officers did not vitiate the entire proceeding, as the seizure and arrest were made by the police after the CISF party produced the accused and the trucks before them.

Issues: 1. Whether the diversion of soft coke coal to a different destination constituted an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Whether the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 overrode the decontrol notifications issued by the government. 3. Whether the charge-sheets submitted under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act were liable to be quashed. 4. Whether the investigation in one of the cases was completed within the period prescribed under section 167(5) Cr.P.C. 5. Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted after the expiry of the prescribed period was bad in law. 6. Whether the seizure and arrest by CISF officers vitiated the entire proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decontrol notifications issued by the government lifted the ban on transport, diversion, purchase, acquisition, etc. of soft coke coal and certain other categories of coal. Therefore, the mere allegation that the soft coke coal, although lifted under valid authority from a colliery in Bihar, was being diverted to a different destination in West Bengal would not make out a case of violation of the Colliery Control Order, 1945 or any provision of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 did not contain any provision in respect of which the decontrol notifications could be said to be inconsistent. Therefore, the argument that the decontrol notifications were no longer applicable after the advent of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was untenable. 3. Since the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act were not attracted to the allegations made, the charge-sheets submitted in both cases under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act were liable to be quashed. 4. The investigation in one of the cases was not completed within the period prescribed under section 167(5) Cr.P.C. and no permission was obtained for continuation of the investigation beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted after the expiry of the prescribed period was bad in law and the proceeding was liable to be quashed. 5. The seizure and arrest by CISF officers did not vitiate the entire proceeding, as the seizure and arrest were made by the police after the CISF party produced the accused and the trucks before them.

Final Decision: The revisional applications were disposed of accordingly. The proceedings which were started and which were continuing on the basis of the impugned charge-sheets Nos. 61 and 93, both dated 20-7-89 under the Essential Commodities Act were quashed. The proceedings continuing on the basis of the charge-sheet No. 94 dated 20-7-89 under sections 407/408/477a/419 read with section 120b IPC was also quashed. The proceedings continuing on the basis of the charge-sheet no. 62 dated 20-7-89 under sections 407/408/468/471/477a/419 read with section 120b ITC however do proceed in accordance with law.