The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding if no prima facie offence is made out under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12th September, 2014 (Annexure-1) passed in G.R. Case No. 655 of 2012 by the learned SDJM, Bolangir whereby an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by him seeking discharge in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (herein after referred to as 'the E.C.Act') was rejected and also the entire of the criminal proceeding on the grounds stated therein.

2. In fact, an F.I.R. was drawn by the S.I. of police of Bolangir Sadar P.S. with regard to an incident dated 13th September, 2012, consequent upon which, a case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was registered showing the driver of the vehicle in question in which the fertilizer bags were being transported and two others as the accused persons. On completion of investigation, the local police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and also the driver under the alleged offence. Finally, at the stage of framing of charge, the petitioner moved the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge but as earlier mentioned, it was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1.

3. Heard Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.Rout, learned AGA for the State.

4. As per the F.I.R. the informant and the Assistant Agricultural Officer after having received reliable information as to the illicit transportation of urea fertilizer followed by an enquiry reached at the spot and intercepted the alleged vehicle bearing registration No. OR 0305 04 loaded with 100 bags of fertilizer. Accordingly, investigation was conducted and the petitioner and the driver were chargesheeted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act with the conclusion that the alleged transportation was for the purposes of black marketing. Thereafter, the plea for discharge was rejected under Annexure-1.

5. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the authorized dealer under a valid license issued by the Agriculture Department and as such, there was no violation of any of the provisions of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 as the stock of fertilizer held by him was covered under the license. It is claimed that though the license of the petitioner was suspended but later on, it was revoked by the orders of the District Agricultural Officer, Bolangir after having found him not involved in black marketing. Furthermore, Mr. Nanda submits that the confiscation proceeding in E.C. Case No. 09 of 2012 in respect of the fertilizers was dropped by the learned Collector & District Magistrate, Bolangir after being satisfied that it was being transported at the relevant point of time having been owned and purchased by the local farmers, who filed a joint application for release of an amount of Rs. 28,155/- spent towards purchasing the fertilizers while producing cash memos in respect of seized 100 bags of urea fertilizer. A copy of the order dated 17th January, 2013 in E.C. Case No. 9 of 2012 is referred to by Mr. Nanda, while pleading for discharge of the petitioner. In support of such contention, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Satya Narayan Kejriwal and Another Vrs. The State of Bihar & Others 1990(1) PLJR 308: MANU/BH/0296/1989; Akshaya Kumar Nayak Vrs. Smt.Lilima Nayak (2008) 39 OCR 429; Jagannath Traders Vrs. Chakradhar Barik, Marketing Inspector 2008(II) OLR 688; and Pratap Rudra Mishra @ Pratap Chandra Mishra Vrs. Susanta Kumar Hota, Inspector of Supplies 89(2000) CLT 725 and it is contended that as there is no case made out and morefully when the confiscation proceeding has been dropped, the criminal action should be brought to an end and terminated in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The petitioner stands chargesheeted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. There is no dispute with regard to recovery and seizure of 100 bags of urea