Mohan Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41835 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2010 Thana -KARJAIN District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Mohan Sharma, son of Late Sonelal Sharma, resident of Village - Bairdah (Motipur) P.S.- Karjain, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rameshwar Paswan, Block Supply Inspector - cum- Block Supply Officer, Rahopur, District- Supaul .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-06-2016 Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 01.08.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur in Karjain P.S. Case no.8/2010 registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. By the said order, the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned does not assign any reason for rejection of the discharge petition nor any contention of the petitioner, which was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41835 of 2013 (2) dt.20-06-2016 2/2 against the discharge petition, has been mentioned by the learned court below.

On perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been made as one of the named accused in the F.I.R. It is further evident that earlier, the petitioner against the order of cognizance had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Cr.Misc.No.43175 of 2010, which stood disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner that he may raise his plea before the court below at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even despite the order of this Court passed in Cr.Misc.No.43175 of 2010, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason nor considered the case of the petitioner and, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any apparent error warranting interference. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U