Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Pathak vs. The State Of Bihar The Principal Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Govt. Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Pathak and Anil Saw, were present in a godown where food grains were allegedly stored illegally. The Supply Inspector, Patna, along with police, raided the godown based on information received by the SDO, Patna Sadar. During the raid, a significant quantity of rice and wheat was seized. The petitioners failed to produce documents for the seized food grains, leading to the lodging of an FIR against them under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for alleged black marketing. The prosecution suspected the seized food grains to be from government schemes.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The reasoning was based on the fact that Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, which is registered with GST and VAT, and is not a PDS dealer. The receipts annexed by the petitioner showed that the food grains were purchased during the course of business from other traders. In light of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, which indicated that the trade of rice has been delicensed and restrictions lifted, the Court found no basis to hold the petitioners liable under Section 7 of the EC Act. Consequently, the FIR was quashed. The operative direction was to quash the FIR and allow the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for alleged illegal storage and black marketing of food grains, given that they are not PDS dealers and the trade of rice has been delicensed since 2002? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend they are innocent and falsely implicated. Petitioner No. 2 is a proprietor engaged in the food grain business, and Petitioner No. 1 is his staff. Petitioner No. 2 purchased the seized food grains from M/s R S Enterprises, Annapurna Galla Bhandar, Shiv Parwati Galla Bhandar, and Maa Kali Traders. They argue that wheat/rice do not fall under Control Orders, and restrictions on trade, storage, and licensing have been lifted since 2002. They rely on High Court decisions in Shriram Rai & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, and Tarapado Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents beyond their general role in the FIR lodging.
Sections Cited
Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-09-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2 This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to quash the FIR in connection with Patna Beur PS Case No 561 of 2022 dated 09.11.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the EC Act. 3 According to the case of the prosecution, on 08.11.2022, the O, Patna Sadar got information that at village – Pakari, food grains were stored illegally in the godown of one Vinay Kumar Singh. On the basis of said information, the O 2/4 Sadar gave direction for the enquiry and, accordingly, the Supply Inspector, Patna at about 4 pm, with the police force, enquired and raided the godown of Vinay Kumar Singh. 4 In the raid, 25 plastic bags (machine stitched), 477 plastic bags (hand stitched), each containing 45 Kilograms of Arwa rice weighing 245.58 quintals of general quality and 151 bags, each containing 40 Kilograms of lower quality rice weighing 60.40 quintals, 33 plastic bags, each containing 25 Kilograms of rice (machine stitched), total 8 quintals and 25 Kilograms and one quintal of wheat kept in two plastic bags, total 314.63 Kilograms of Arwa rice and one quintal of wheat kept in 688 bags have been seized. 5 At the time of raid, two persons, namely, Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Pathak and Anil Saw (both the petitioners in this case) were present there. Since they failed to produce any document with regard to the seized food grains, therefore, it is alleged that the food grains were stored in the godown for the purpose of black marketing. It is also alleged that the seized food grains prima facie appeared to be of Government scheme. Thus, the food grains were seized and the FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the E C Act. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated 3/4 in this case maliciously only on the suspicion. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not PDS dealers. Therefore, Section 7 of the EC Act does not attract against them. Petitioner No 2 is the proprietor doing the business of food grains and petitioner No 1 is the staff of petitioner No 2. Petitioner No 2 had purchased the seized food grains from M/s R S Enterprises, Annapurna Galla Bhandar, Shiv Parwati Galla Bhandar and Maa Kali Traders. Learned counsel further submits that wheat/rice do not come under the Control Orders and the respondents arbitrarily seized the food grains and lodged the FIR. It is also submitted that the trade of rice has been delicensed from the year of 2002 and the restriction has been lifted. The movement of control, storage limit, requirement of licence, maintenance of stock register, issuance of cash memo, display of stock and price position have been abolished, therefore, petitioner No 2 was entitled to purchase and sell the rice in the open market. 7 In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shriram Rai & Anr -Versus- The State of Bihar & Ors {2006 (1) PLJR 504, Santosh Kumar -Versus- The State of Bihar, {1990 (2) PLJR 520} and Tarapado Ghosh & Ors -Versus- The State of Bihar, {1990 (2) PLJR 602}.
4/4 8 It is contended that petitioner No 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders registered with the GST and VAT and, being a proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, is doing the business of food grains. In support of his contention, the petitioner has annexed the receipt of the foodgrains which has been purchased by him from R S Enterprises and Maa Kali Traders (Annexure 2 series). 9 Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that petitioner No 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, registered with the GST and VAT and not a PDS dealer. The receipt (Annexure 2 series) further shows that during the course of his business, petitioner No 2 has purchased the foodgrains from M/s Maa Kali Traders and R S Enterprises. Therefore, in the light of the judgments, as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the petitioners cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the EC Act. 10 For the reasons as mentioned herein above, the FIR is liable to be and is, accordingly, quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./- (Arvind Singh Chandel , J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.10.2024 Transmission Date 04.10.2024
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.