S.Shamshul Hasan, J.:-
(1) The petitioner in this application are accused in a prosecution for violation, it is stated, of section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 on the basis of a report dated 26. 10. 1974, made by the supply inspector of deori, who inspected the business premises of m/s. Maheshwari bhandar, a wholesale foodgrains dealer of mahua, where it is alleged certain quantities of rice and wheat were found in excess. This report was filed before the mahua police station and a case under section 7 of the essential commodities act was registered. After completion of investigation charge - sheet, dated 1. 8. 75, was filed recommending action under section 7 of the act. On the basis of this report and charge - sheet, cognizance was taken by the chief judicial magistrate, hajipur, on 24. 3. 77.
(2) In order to appreciate the point that has been raised in this case, and which is now well settled by numerous decisions of the supreme court as well as the high court, i would like to set out below the relevant portions of the charge - sheet dated 1. 8. 76 and of the order taking cognizance dated 24. 3. 77. (charge - sheet)
"sanchhipta ghatna ka vivaran yah hai ki dinank 26. 10. 74 ko apurti nirikshak vogairah ne maheshwari bhandar ko talas kia evam trutiyan payi aur likhit prativedan diye jiske adhar par mahua thana ke case no. 36 di. 30. 10. 74 dhara 7 avashak vastu adhiniyam ke antargat kalam kiya gaya aur thana prabhari shri k. K. Mishra and anusandhan grahan kiye ebam anusandhan pura kia tatha badli hone ke bad ve mujhey is case ka charge dia/bad me arakshi upadhikshak mahoday ka adesh ko prapta hua jiske anusar mai prathmiki me ankit abhiyukton biswanath choudhary aur ram. Bilas chaudhary ke virudh hai/dhara 7 avashak vastu ke niyam ke antargat dhara patra samarpit kar rahe boon taki iska faisla nyayalaya samarpit kar raha hoon taki is ho sake". (order) "arop patra sankhya 133 dinank 1. 8. 76 dhara 7 avashak vastu adhiniyam ke antargat abhiyukta biswanath choudhary aur rambilas choudhary ke virudh prapt hua. (2) abhiyukta bishwanath choudhary aur ram bilas choudhary ke virudh dhara 7 avashyak vastu adhinium ke antangat sangyan iia jata hai dono abhiyukta police ka jamanat par hain/atah summon jari kia jai/abhilekh shri b, n. Singh a. Nya : da : ke yahan nispadan hetu bheja jata hai/ dinank 21. 4. 77 abhiyukton ki upasthiti hetu"
.
(3) Two points have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, that the charge sheet is, in view of section 11 of the essential commodities act and several decisions on this point, the basis for taking cognizance in a matter under section 7 of the essential commodities act, and it is essential that facts setting out an offence should be stated therein and, secondly, that the first information report cannot be looked into for the purposes of finding material to enable the magistrate to take cognizance. Undoubtedly, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are of substance and have to be accepted. The order taking cognizance as well as the charge sheet are remarkably devoid of two vital elements. Firstly, they do not mention the order under section 3 of the essential commodities act, justifying the application of section 7 of the act which has been violated. This is, blissfully for the petitioners, completely absent. Secondly, no violation of any kind whatsoever has been started in either of them. In regard to looking into the contents of the first information report for filing the materials into a vague charge - sheet, the supreme court in an unreported decision (deokaran agarwalla v. The state of bihar, cr. A. No. 38 of 1968, decided on 26. 11. 68) has held that the first information report cannot be looked into for the purposes of taking cognizance. All that the magistrate taking cognizance can look into the charge - sheet which must be held to be the report of 'a public servant. This decision is referred to in an unreported decision of this court in criminal miscellaneous no 4020 of 1975, disposed of on 11th january, 1977. In air 1961 sc 929 (bhagvati saran v. The state of bihar) , the requirements of a charge sheet have been spelt out and that decision also states that the charge sheet must at least contain the ingredients of the offence charged. The charge sheet in this case falls short' of the minimum requirement stated in that decision not only that but the charge - sheet is completely devoid of any fact that may bring out an infringement of law by the petitioners except stating that section 7 of the essential commodities act is violated which section perhaps applies to a large number of orders promulgated under section 3 of the act. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the order of cognizance dated 24. 3. 77 passed in g. R. Case no 2201 of 1974 (tr 376 of 1977).
(4) Before parting with this judgment, i am constrained to state that this prosecution has failed entirely due to either complete lack of knowledge on the part of the investigating officer who submitted the charge - sheet or some mala fide motive on his part in submitting a defective charge - sheet. The state of law by now is so well settled that it is expected that any police officer investigating a matter of this kind would know what is required to be stated in the charge - sheet. The cavalier manner in which charge - sheet has been submitted in this; case can only be deeply regretted as far as courts are concerned and it is high time that the authorities take proper steps to see that persons investigating such cases are made aware of the law so that the entire spirit of enforcing laws like the essential commodities act and the orders passed thereunder are not frustrated. The magistrate also has shown complete lack of knowledge of the basic elements of law in relation to the charge - sheets filed under section 7 of the essential commodities act. He was expected to know that the charge - sheet that had been filed was completely devoid of any legal sanction whatsoever and it is surprising that his own order is as blissfully vague as the charge - sheet. It seems that the authorities who file the cases, the authorities who investigate the cases and the courts which deal with these cases are only content with the initiating of these proceedings, in taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons in a casual manner, without any regard for the observance of the requirements of law in this respect. Let copies of this judgment be sent to the inspector - general of police and the district magistrate, vaishali.
(5) This application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 24. 3. 77, against the petitioners is quashed. Application allowed.
Comments