IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80406 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2014 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai ======================================================

RAJEEV SINGH @ RAJEEV KUMAR Son of Rameshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village-Sihma, Police Station-Matihani, District-Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 12-03-2026 In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the S.D.J.M, Begusarai in connection with Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 141 of 2014, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the informant-

Circle Officer, namely Kamlesh Kumar Singh along with other officials went to the godown of Bakhthan Astan and found that some persons were loading bags on a Truck bearing No. BR- 06C-8413 and others were packaging rice in bags having F.C.I printed on it. Upon seeing the police, the persons at the godown tried to flee, but the police managed to apprehend them and thereafter, they disclosed their names and addresses. The munsi (clerk) of the godown namely, Suresh Prasad, disclosed that the godown belongs to this petitioner and at his instance the F.C.I. sealed rice bags were replaced with ‘double tiger’ marked bags and the same were being supplied to the local market. Accordingly, the present F.I.R. bearing Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 141 of 2014 was registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but the Investigating Officer of the case filed a petition before the court below for adding his name as accused in the case and thereafter the name of the petitioner was added as an accused in the F.I.R and the court below vide impugned order dated 06.12.2016 has taken cognizance against the petitioner.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the godown in question actually fell in the share of the own brother of the petitioner namely, Pankaj Kumar, who had let out the same to the co-accused Suresh Prasad Singh @ Sujeet Kumar Mishra and in this regard a ‘kirayanama’ (rent-agreement) was also executed between them and said Suresh Prasad Singh alias Sujeet Kumar Mishra, was engaged in running the business of food-grains in the said godown. Further, the seized food grains and articles have been released in favour of said co-accused - Suresh Prasad Singh on the petition filed by him in the court below. Therefore, it is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members were in any way concerned with the business run by the tenant. 5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even the F.I.R. does not disclose any violation of provision of specific Control Order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, violation of which is punishable under section 7 of the E.C. Act. The seized food grains is free sale commodity and there is no control order, made under section 3 of the E.C. Act which prohibits the sale and purchase of food-grains.

6. It is the categorical submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is not a P.D.S. dealer, the provisions of Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2007 would not be applicable against him.

7. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the all