Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51063/2013dismissed

Ramjee Kunwar @ Ramjee Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-03-14Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No 51063 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2011 Thana -PAKRIDAYAL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) =========================================================== Ramjee Kunwar @ Ramjee Kumar S/O Bhama Saha Resident Of VillageBhagwanpur, Kotwa, P.S- Ghore, Sahan, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Sunil Kr No III, Advocate For the S t a t e : Ms Pushpa Sinha II, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is bad in respect of the petitioner since the mini truck, from which 90 bags of urea has allegedly been seized, does not belong to the petitioner. He submits that allegation in this respect in the first information report (for brevity, FIR) is on another person by the name of Dilip Kumar Mahto who has filed an application in the Court below claiming to be the owner of the mini truck from which 90 bags of urea has been recovered and in relation to which this FIR has been lodged. However, what is the outcome of the application filed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51063 of 2013 dt.14-03-2018 2/2 by Dilip Kumar Mahto is neither on record nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is in a position to inform this Court regarding the fate of the application filed by Dilip Kumar Mahto.

3 The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is factual denial of the allegations made in the FIR. Such factual denial, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity, Cr P C) cannot be gone into as the factual denial and defence of the petitioner can be considered in the trial.

4 There is no scope for interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr P C in the order taking cognizance. This application is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.03.2018 Transmission Date 14.03.2018