JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 04.08.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2012, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioners.

4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.03.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 991 of 2008(A)/T.R. No. 142/2012 [arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 106/2008 dated 08.04.2008] had convicted the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and had sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each. The period undergone in judicial custody by the convicts during trial was directed to be set off.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that vide order dated 20.08.2008, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but vide order dated 31.07.2009, the trial for the offence under Section 414 of IPC was separated and the present case is related to the trial under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act only.

6. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is consequent upon violation of one or the other Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, but there is no material on record to indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated by the accused persons. She further submitted that the condition precedent for convicting the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has not been brought on record and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction. She referred to a judgment passed by this Court reported in 2012 (1) East Cr C 367 (Jhr) in the case of Susharma Singh Munda –vs- State of Jharkhand and submitted that even an F.I.R. was quashed by this Court on the ground that there was no disclosure in the F.I.R. as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was violated. She submitted that neither in the F.I.R., nor during investigation, nor during the evidence of any of the witnesses, it has been substantiated as to which provision/Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been violated and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State did not dispute the fact that the records of the case do not indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been violated. He submitted that appropriate order may be passed considering the materials available on the records of the case.

Findings of this Court

8. The prosecution case is based on the written report dated 08.04.2008 lodged by the Informant, namely, A.S.I. Naresh Paswan, O/c, Barwadda P.S., Dhanbad alleging inter-alia that on the basis of confidential information received during evening patrolling regarding transportation of Kerosene Oil in a Tempo, the Informant alongwith other police officials proceeded for raid and verification and reached at Ajabdih near Saurabh Hard Coke Bhatta at abo