Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 80
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.
Ram Abatar Agarwala
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
C. R. R. No. 1129 of 2001
Decided On : February 8, 2002
S. S. Roy, Jaya Ghosh, Madhusudan Sur for the petitioner.
The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense and the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - WEST BENGAL RICE AND PADDY (CONTROL) ORDER, 1997 - SECTION 7(1)(A)(II) - SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - VALID LICENCE - NO COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a rice trader, was accused of violating the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997, by transporting rice without a valid license from the consignee. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that he had a valid license and that the consignee also had a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute a cognizable offense and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court. The court further held that it could not embark on an inquiry into whether the petitioner had violated any conditions of his license at this stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted a cognizable offense. 2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court. 3. Whether the High Court could embark on an inquiry into whether the petitioner had violated any conditions of his license at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute a cognizable offense because the complaint did not reproduce all the ingredients of the offense verbatim and the High Court could not enter into a debatable area as to which of the two versions of the parties was true. 2. The court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court because the petitioner had a valid license and the consignee also had a valid license. 3. The court held that it could not embark on an inquiry into whether the petitioner had violated any conditions of his license at this stage because such matters had to be decided only at the trial stage upon assessing the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.: This is an application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the accused Ram Abatar Agarwala seeking to quash the proceeding of E.C. Case No. 40 of 1999 arising out of Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 138 of 1999 dated 25.6.99 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X/55 pending before the court of learned Judge, Special Court, E. C. Act, Murshidabad.
2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present revisional application may be stated as under:-
3. Ram Abatar Agarwala, the petitioner herein, is one of the partners of Satya Narayan Rice and Atta Mills situated at Gazole, in the district of Malda. The petitioner's firm is having valid rice licence being Licence No. 18/GL/B-2/ 98 which was valid upto 17-12-99.
4. One Bimal Kumar Saha, Sub-Inspector of Police, DEO, Dhulian lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Raghunathganj Police Station that on 25-6-99 at about 11-15 hrs, he along with W. C. 25, Dastur Azim and force had been to Omarpur More on NH 34 under Raghunathganj Police Station for holding raid against the illegal Rice Traders and intercepted one Lorry being No. WMK-7277 which was proceeding from Farakka side to Moregram side.
5. On checking it was found that the said lorry was loaded with rice and the driver of the said lorry Dipak Royi. e., opposite party No.2 claimed that he was the driver of the above truck and he was proceeding to Burdwan from Gazole. It was further alleged that on demand, the driver Dipak Roy produced the paper, challan, cash memo etc., in respect of 130 quintals of A/C Rice in 130 bags, each bag containing 100 kgs. But the aforesaid driver failed to produce any licence of the consignee, Dakania Traders of Jamuria although he could produce licence of the consignor, Ram Abatar Agarwala i.e., the accused petitioner. Hence, the driver violated the provision of para-3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 and is liable for prosecution under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X/55. The complainant seized the said 130 quintals of A/C Rice in 130 bags and the involved truck with all connected papers along with other connected papers, challan, cash memo etc., in respect of rice after preparing proper seizure list and thereafter the complainant kept the said 130 quintals of NC Rice in 130 bags in the Zimma of Motilal Chandra of Raghunathganj after obtaining proper Zimmanama.
6. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 138 of 1999 dated 25.6.99, E.C. Case No. 40 of 1999 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55 was started by the Officer-in-Charge, Raghunathganj Police Station and after completion of the investigation, the present petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have been charge-sheeted by the police. The petitioner fully surrendered before the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Murshidabad on 25.02.2000 and was released on bail by the concerned court.
7. Meanwhile, the petitioner made a claim for return of the seized rice before the concerned court and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur by his order dated 2.7.99 was pleased to release the said rice provisionally on furnishing a bond of Rs. one lakh with one lawyer's surety.
8. By filing the instant application, the petitioner had alleged that the charge as contained in the charge-sheet does not at all lie against the petitioner since he has not contravened and/or violated any provisions of Para-3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 as the petitioner had valid A/C rice licence which was valid upto 17.12.99 and that the consignee, Dakania Traders of Jamuria had also valid licence of A/C rice being No. 242/Dealer/ Jamuria/D. C./BDN/99 which was valid upto 23.3.2000 and as such there is no violation whatsoever of the Para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997.
9. According to the petitioner, there was no reason whatsoever for proceeding with this case against him and the continua
