AMRIT LAL GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1986-9-17
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 03,1986

AMRIT LAL GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P. Das Ghosh, J. - (1.)The petitioner is the owner of a shop styled as M/s Ghosh and Company at Ghosh Para Road, P.S. Titagarh in the district of 24-Parganas. He was arrested on 17.9.78 for violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1968 and the provisions of the West Bengal Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1977. An oil tanker loaded with 9000 litres of Kerosene Oil stock and sale registers, cash memo book and other documents were seized on 17.9.78 from the shop of M/s Ghosh and Companr. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore on 19.9.78, as he was granted bail from the Police Station after his arrest on 17.9.78. His prayer for bail had to be deferred for non-filing of the first information report. After filing of the first information report he was granted bail by an order passed on 2 5.9.78. There was a prayer by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate for an order for distribution of the seized Kerosene Oil to the retail shops authorised to sell Kerosene oil. On 25.9.78 the learned Magistrate directed the sale of the seized Kerosene Oil through the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies to the authorised retailers in presence of the Investigating Officer and for deposit of the sale-proceeds in the treasury. Subsequently, on 12.11.80, a petition was filed by the Investigating Officer alleging noncompliance with the courts order dated 25.9.78 by the petitioner. On 1.12.80 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to deposit the sale proceeds of the seized Kerosene oil by 8.12 80 and to produce the challan by 15.12.80. It is against this order dated 1.12.80 as well as the continuation of the proceeding in the court of the learned Magistrate beyond six months after the arrest of the petitioner on 17.9.78, that the present revisional application has been filed.
(2.)Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the offences alleged fall within the ambit of sections 3(2)(h) and 3(2)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ActT for the sake of convenience) and are punishable under section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act with imprisonment which may extend to one year and also fine and hence, the case was a summons case which ought to have been tried under the summary procedure under section 12A of the Act, prior to the amendment of the Act by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Amending Act for the sake brevity). The contention is that as under section 12A of the Act, the offence for contravention of an order made under section 3 of the Act was to be tried in a summary way and. the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were, as far as might be, to apply to such trial, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the case as done by him, after expiry of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner on 17.9.78, when, in view of the provisions under section 167 (5), Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate was to make an order stopping further investigation into the offence for non-conclusion of the investigation within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner, unless the investigating officer satisfied the learned Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice, the continuance of the investigation beyond the period of six month was necessary. As the investigation was not concluded in this case within a period of six months from 17.9.78, Mr. Bose contends that all orders passed by the learned Magistrate after expiry of six months from 17.9.78, are without jurisdiction. He further contends that the order dated 1.12.80 passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous as the seized Kerosene oil was in the custody of the Investigating Officer and was to be sold through the Sub Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, as per the order of the learned Magistrate dated 25.9.78.
(3.)The contention of the learned Advocate for the State is that the petitioner ought to have made such submissions, as made by Mr. Bose in this Court, in the court below and not before the High Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.