Pijush Kumar Dey vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the learned SDJM, Ghatshila, had erred in taking cognizance of the offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court found that the penalties envisaged under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act can only be imposed upon contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act or failure to comply with a direction given under Section 3(4)(b). The Court noted that neither the First Information Report, the Charge Sheet, nor the Counter Affidavit filed in the case disclosed any order under Section 3 for the violation of which penalties were sought. Furthermore, there was no allegation of the petitioners failing to comply with a direction given under Section 3(4)(b). Therefore, even if the allegations were considered true, the offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was not made out. The Court also noted the State's concession that no Control Order had been violated and that the cognizance was taken in violation of Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance were quashed and set aside as being unsustainable in law and an abuse of process.

Facts

The petitioners, Pijush Kumar Dey and Subodh Kumar Ojha, were found in possession of 460 gunny bags of wheat marked with the Food Corporation of India logo at their flour mill. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the wheat on March 20, 2020, for Rs. 5,59,000. Following an investigation, the police submitted a Final Form, concluding the case was a mistake of facts and did not recommend prosecution. However, the learned SDJM, Ghatshila, disagreed with the police report and took cognizance of an offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned SDJM, Ghatshila, erred in taking cognizance of an offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the petitioners, despite the police submitting a Final Form and the absence of any allegation of violation of a Control Order issued under Section 3 of the said Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the learned SDJM acted without application of mind and illegally took cognizance. They contended that wheat is not a controlled item, is freely available in the market, and no GST is leviable on food grains. Crucially, they asserted that Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act can only be invoked upon contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act, and no such contravention was alleged or established. They relied on the police's Final Form which stated the case was a mistake of facts. Revenue's contention: The learned Spl. PP for the State fairly conceded that there was no material on record to suggest any Control Order had been violated. Furthermore, the Spl. PP admitted that the learned SDJM committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance in violation of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as no written report constituting an offense had been submitted by any public servant, aggrieved person, or recognized consumer association.