Patna High Court – Orders
Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60496 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Santosh Kumar S/o Rajeshwar Choudhary, R/o Tepari, P.S.- Pear, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saroj Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 14-07-2026
Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner through this application has prayed
for quashing of First Information Report, vide; PIAR (Hatho
O.P.) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015, (District-Muzaffarpur) instituted
for the offence under Section 7 of E.C. Act.
3. As per the allegation, a truck bearing registration
no. BR-O6G-4102 was intercepted by the informant, who
happens to be Block Development Officer, and altogether 80
bags of rice, each bag containing 47 kg rice, were seized. It has
further been alleged that the driver of the truck managed to flee
away. The informant suspected that the rice was being
transported for the purpose of black marketing and accordingly
the truck and rice was seized.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a trader of rice,
having a valid G.S.T. registration. It has further been submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60496 of 2018(7) dt.14-07-2026
2/4
that it has been settled by several decisions of this court that no
prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act could be
launched as against a private person. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner admittedly is not a dealer under the
Public Distribution System. It has further been submitted that in
absence of any provision under the Essential Commodities Act
for launching a prosecution as against a private person, the
petitioner cannot be tried for such offence. The Essential
Commodities Act has been framed for the benefit of the
consuming public. For any violation of the provisions of
Essential Commodities Act or the Controlled Orders,
promulgated under the authority of the Essential Commodities
Act, only the agents of P.D.S. dealers could be prosecuted. It has
further been submitted that the rice does not come under the
purview of controlled item.
5. In support of such contention, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Subodh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2026 (3) 405 BLJ, and relied on
paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment which are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the FIR does not disclose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60496 of 2018(7) dt.14-07-2026
3/4
violation of any Control Order made under Section
3 of the E.C. Act which is a necessary condition for
prosecution under Section 7. The allegation is only
of involvement in the black marketing for which the
case was instituted. The petitioner was merely a
Transporter-cum-Handling Agent of Bihar State
Food & Civil Supply Corporation, Bhagalpur and
had no ownership or dominion over the food
grains. The seized food grains belonged to one
Alok Kumar hence no allegation of
misappropriation or black marketing can be
sustained. There is no material in the FIR or
charge-sheet to show that the petitioner sold,
diverted or misused any food grains. In absence of
such allegation no mens rea can be attributed to
him and offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC
or Section 7 of the E.C. Act are not made out. For
prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act
contravention of an order under Section 3 is a pre-
condition. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet
specifies any such contravention. In absence of
such material, the cognizance order dated
13.09.2018 is unsustainable. As there is no law
restricting the movement of wheat within the State
of Bihar and the food grains in question were
released and confiscation order has been set-aside
by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Bhagalpur in appeal, no offence under the
provisions of the E.C. Act is made out. Hence, the
cognizance order is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60496 of 2018(7) dt.14-07-2026
4/4
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on the judgment passed in the case of Hari
Narain Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar reported in
2009 (3) PLJR 822 in which his Lordship has held
at Para-5 and 6 that:-
“5. …..The F.I.R. does not
disclose as to which Order made
under Section 3 of the E.C. Act has
been violated. Section 7 of the E.C.
Act deals with the persons who
contravene any Order made under
Section 3 of the E.C. Act, hence no
prosecution lies.
6. Secondly mere allegation
that the articles seized was
purportedly for the purposes of black
marketing is not complete in the
prosecution. The element of sale being
also absent the allegation of black
marketing is not complete.”
5. In view of such, the First Information Report, vide;
PIAR (Hatho O.P.) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015, as against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
6. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Aman/-
U T
