Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is attracted only when there is a contravention of the provisions of any order issued under Section 3. The prosecution under Section 7 cannot be sustained if there is no storage limit in force for the relevant commodity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 414, 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 77 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2701 of 2012, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi.

3. The FIR was lodged stating therein that the informant received one secret information that on 15.05.2012 near Malmadu Chowk at about 07.30 A.M. two trucks carrying illegal rice would be brought for black marketing. After initial verification and after obtaining due permission from the senior officials, the informant with his team reached at the Malmadu Chowk and started checking. It has been alleged that during checking two trucks were seen coming from Karamkuli at 10.30 AM which were made to stop with the help of police force. The trucks were bearing respective numbers as JH 01K 0260 & JH 01 P 5458 (407). On being enquired about the names of truck drivers, it was told as Jolen Kanduluna (of truck no. JH 01K 0260) and Haldhar Singh (of truck no. JH 01 P 5458). They told the name of truck owner of truck no. JH 01K 0260 as Dilip Kumar Sahu and Naresh Agarwal (petitioner no.2) of truck no. JH 01 P 5458. It was further told that the owner of the loaded rice is Santosh Sahu who was sitting on truck no. JH 01K 0260 from whom enquiry was made about the rice loaded on truck. On being asked about the papers with regard to the loaded rice, it was shown to the police as issued in the name of Saroj Kumar Gupta and Pradip Sahu. It has been further alleged that when the police strictly asked about the papers and the loaded rice it was told that the papers are forged and the rice loaded on the trucks were being carried after purchasing it from one Naim Ansari for selling it to one Sanjay Sao (petitioner no.1). It has been further alleged that in the presence of two independent witness the truck was searched and found the truck no. JH 01K 0260 loaded with 280 bags of rice each of 50 kg and the truck no. JH 01 P 5458 was found loaded with 100 bags of rice each weighing 50 kg. It has been further alleged that on being not showing any valid papers with regard to the loaded rice, the same were duly seized with the forged documents. Jolen Kandulana, Haldhar Singh and Santosh Sahu were also arrested by the police.

4. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance in a routine manner and there is non-application of judicial mind. He submits that the allegation made in the FIR does not constitute the contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that ingredients of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act cannot made out, in view of fact that the seized article namely rice is not a controlled item under any order, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act at the time of alleged commission of offence.

5. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Arun Nag @ Arun Kumar Nag & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2012 (3) JCR 200 (Jhr). Para-8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

8. So far offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is concerned, it does get attracted when provision of any order issued under Section 3 is violated. In the instant case, there has been no mentioning of contravention of the provision of any order. Moreover, it has never been denied that on the day of occurrence, no storage limit, within respect to rice and wheat was in force. Under this situation, the prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act cannot be sustained.

6. He further submits that nothing has been brought to show that any re