IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29179 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2018 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== RADHE SHYAM YADAV @ BHOLA YADAV Son of Late Bhuneshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Pokhra, P.S.- Allouli, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHAGARIA. Bihar 2. The Block Supply Officer, Allouli Block, District - Khagaria. Bihar 3. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Khagaria through its Manager Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the state and the learned Counsel for the B.S.F.C. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2018, whereby the learned court has taken cognizance under section 420, 467 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 in connection with Allouli P.S. Case No.359 of 2018. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 2/9 3. As per the prosecution, on 08.10.2018, Allouli Police seized a truck bearing no. HR69D0555 loaded with rice in the light of Memo No. 434 and brought the same to the police station. Subsequently, on conducting search, some documents and rice of Durga Rice Mill was found in the truck and the driver of the truck could not be traced. Later the proprietor-petitioner was asked for presenting the documents relating to the rice loaded on the truck, which the petitioner was not able to produce, and it was disclosed by the petitioner that the rice was for sale. It was alleged that the seized rice was government rice and the petitioner being proprietor has shown invoice bill that the said rice was parmal rice and the same was alleged to have been taken for black marketing and therefore the loaded 402 quintal of arwa rice and the truck in question was seized. Accordingly, a FIR was instituted against one unknown truck driver and the petitioner-Radhe Shyam Yadav on the basis of written report of the informant Ajay Kumar, Block Supply Officer, Allouli. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has valid document, registered for running rice mill and he has purchased paddy from P.A.C.S and in spite of giving the relevant papers to the local police, the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 3/9 has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. It is the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that rice is not an essential commodity as per notification by the Central Government and therefore the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are not attracted. Further, it is submitted that the sale of rice does not come under the Control Order and that no confiscation proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner. Particularly, it is the submission that arwa chawal is not an essential commodity and there is no price fixation on it and therefore, there is no question of black marketing of arwa rice. Despite the aforesaid, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rice of the petitioner is seized from the truck which is perishable in nature. The seizure of the perishable rice of the petitioner without strictly adhering to the procedural requirements is also unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside. 6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the seized rice as well as seized truck has already been released by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3968 of 2019 and order dated 11.03.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4306 of 2019, respectively. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 4/9 7. The learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 8. I have heard and considered the submissions of the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 9. From the reading of the F.I.R it appears that the truck and the rice of the petitioner was seized by the Supply Officer, Allouli, on the suspicion of black-marketing. 10. It appears that the arwa rice, which has been seized from the truck for the reason that petitioner could not produce the paper of sale and purchase of food grains, and therefore, it was suspected that seized rice is a Government subsidized rice. 11. Pertinently, rice has been removed from the ambit of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Central Government vide Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order 2002. 12. From the perusal of the materials on record it is clear that, there is no material even prima facie that the seized rice is government subsidized rice. 13. This Court in the case of Shriram Rai v. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 5/9 State of Bihar, reported as 2006 SCC OnLine Pat 4 has held as under - 3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that no order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act restricts movement of rice from one place to another and, as such, petitioners cannot be said to have violated any order made under the aforesaid provision to bring the act within the mischief of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, [1990 (2) PLJR 520] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows:— “It is painful to note that the authorities who are the custodians of law and order are not acquainted with the latest position of law. The said Movement Control Order for the violation of which the petitioner has been put to harassment, was rescinded as far back as on 30th September, 1977. In that view of the matter the entire prosecution seems to be without any legal foundation and it is fit to be quashed at this stage.” 4. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Tarapado Ghosh v. State of Bihar, [1990 (2) PLJR 602] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 5 of the judgment:— “The Bihar Food grains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 had been in operation for several years but this Control Order was rescinded with effect from first day of October, 1977 by the Central Government's Notification No. S.O. 696(E) 30th September, 1977. This fact is accepted by the learned State Counsel. Therefore, admittedly Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 6/9 during the time of occurrence i.e. April to June, 1978 there was no Control Order under the Act to restrict the movement of food grains from Bihar to any outside place. It follows, therefore, that if pulses were booked from any place in Bihar, which in the present case is Chapra, to any destination outside the State no offence arises on this account.” xxx 6. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Giri and the plea of ignorance put forth by the District Supply Officer is a pretence. From the allegation made in the First Information Report, it is evident that supply is being made at the purchase Centres of the State Food Corporation through the middle men and not by the farmers for whom the scheme was launched and this according to the informant constitute offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, when a challenge is made, the plea of the Informant is that due to ignorance under a bona fide belief he got the case registered on the ground of violation of the Unification Order, but later on he came to know that food grains have been deleted by notification issued prior to the date of seizure. Thus, whole emphasis of the informant is to show his bona fide in lodging the First Information Report but nothing has been said to demonstrate that the allegations made constitute any offence. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the allegation made does not constitute any offence and hence, prosecution of the petitioner shall be in abuse of the process of the Court. 7. To put the record straight, Dr. Jha, points out that by notification dated 11.2.2002 food grains were deleted from the Unification Order but by notification dated 25th of October, 2005 the aforesaid notification deleting food grains was modified and food grains excluding subsidised food grain to be distributed through PDS Shops and Purchase, sale as well as storage of food grains through Government a/c was deleted. The amendment reads as follows:— Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 7/9 “ Amendment In the above mentioned order, the word and bracket (Food grains) (Excluding subsidised foodgrains to be distributed through PDS Shops and Purchase, sale as well storage of food grains through PDS Shops and Purchase, sale as well storage of food grains through (Government A/C) used in Schedule I are hereby deleted. Prior notification may kindly be treated as revised to this extent.” 8. He points out that the food grains of the Public Distribution System therefore, is covered by the Unification Order. This in no way advances the case of the Opposite Party. It is not the allegation that the foodgrain seized from the petitioners is in any way connected or belonged to the Public Distribution System or is from the Government account. Thus, in my opinion, allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute any offence and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is fit case in which jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fit to be exercised to quash the prosecution.” 14. Thereafter a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sagar Choudhary vs The State of Bihar & Anr. reported as 2024 (3) PLJR 744 had held as under - “6. This Court, in various judgments consistently held that FIR under Section 7 read with Section 420 of the I.P.C. cannot be instituted because of the promulgation of the removal order (R/O) of 2002 which came into effect on and from 15.02.2002. 7. Some of the unreported decisions of this Court are as follows:- (i) Cr. Misc. No. 11049 of 2021 ( Naresh Sah vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) decided on 19th May, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 8/9 2022. (ii) CWJC No. 2245 of 2017 (Sandip Kumar Jaiswal @ Sandip Jaiswal vs. The State of Bihar and others) decided on 26.07.2018. (iii) 2006 SCC Online Pat. 4 (Sriram Rai and Anr. vs. the State of Bihar and others) decided on 02.01.2006. 8. This Court is in conformity with the decisions made by the Co-ordinate Bench mentioned hereinabove. 9. In view of such circumstances, the FIR was maliciously instituted on the ground of mala fide by the respondents and even if the FIR is taken at its face value, it does not establish a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 10. Accordingly, FIR in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 108 of 2018 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is quashed and set aside. The criminal case instituted against the petitioner be dropped. 11. The instant writ application is, accordingly, allowed on contest. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” 15. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the afore-quoted decision of the Coordinate bench of this Court in Ram Sagar Choudhary (supra). 16. Considering the fact that the rice as well as the truck seized does not attract section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and upon mere suspicion the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner which is wholly impermissible. The continuance of the criminal prosecution despite even a whisper of material to suggest black-marketing would amount to abuse of the process of court and therefore impermissible. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29179 of 2019(4) dt.20-01-2026 9/9 17. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2018, passed by the learned S.D.J.M arising out of Allouli P.S. Case No.359 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U