Onkarmal Sharma @ Onkarmal vs The State of Bihar

B.N. Agrawal, J.—This application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') for violation of provision of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Unification Order'') and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.1.86 in relation to cotton cloth. It is said that no storage 1 imit has been fixed for the cotton cloth under the Unification Order. As such the Unification Order is not workable in relation to cotton cloth. It has been held in a catena of decisions that if the storage limit is not fixed an accused cannot be prosecuted for violation of the Unification Order. Therefore, prosecution of the Petitioner for violation of provision of the Unification Order becomes unwarranted. 5

So far prosecution of the Petitioner u/s 353 of the Penal Code is concerned according to prosecution case the Petitioner has deterred a public servant from discharging his duty as the Petitioner was not carrying out the obligation under the provision of the Unification Order. Since the Unification Order was not workable, the Petitioner was not required to carry out any obligation under the Unification Order. As such the informant had no right to ask the Petitioner as to why he was not carrying out the provision of the Act, so the Petitioner cannot be said to have deterred the informant in discharge of his official duty which was entitled in law. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons ho offence u/s 353 of the Penal Code is also disclosed.

In the result, this application is allowed and prosecution of the Petitioner both u/s 7 of the Act and Section 353 of 5 the Penal Code is hereby quashed.