Case Background
The case arose from Naubatpur Police Station Case No.121 of 2019, dated 02.03.2019, registered in Patna district. The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The accused in the FIR is a public distribution system (PDS) dealer. He was running a fair price shop under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Complaints were made by consumers regarding non-supply of food grains for January 2019 and about the location of his PDS shop.
On the basis of these complaints and an inquiry by the Block Supply Officer, Naubatpur, the FIR was registered. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Through this petition, he sought quashing of the FIR itself, so that no criminal investigation or prosecution could continue against him under the Essential Commodities Act.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court. The Court heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the State’s counsel, and examined the FIR and relevant provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Petitioner’s objections to the FIR
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR had been lodged in “utter haste”. According to him, before registration of an FIR, the authorities should have verified whether the consumers who complained were actually attached to the petitioner’s PDS shop.
He pointed out that statements of consumers were recorded by the Block Supply Officer, Naubatpur. However, in those statements, none of the consumers had specifically disclosed the petitioner’s name as the PDS dealer who failed to supply food grains for January 2019. On this basis, he claimed that the FIR did not reveal his culpability.
The second part of the complaint in the FIR related to the location of the PDS shop. It was alleged that the shop was not found at the place mentioned in the licence. The petitioner gave his explanation for this.
He submitted that he had already applied before the concerned authorities to change the location of his PDS shop, because he was facing difficulty in running it at the original licensed place. According to him, the Supply Officer, Patna, had verbally permitted him to shift his shop and had also carried out inspections at the new location from time to time.
On these grounds, the petitioner’s counsel argued that allowing the criminal case to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court. He requested the High Court to quash the FIR using its writ jurisdiction.
State’s response defending the FIR
The State’s counsel opposed the petition. He submitted that the allegations mentioned in the FIR clearly attracted the ingredients of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The FIR alleged that the petitioner did not supply food grains which he had received for distribution to consumers. It further alleged that he shifted his place of business without informing the licensing authority. According to the State, these were serious violations under the PDS control framework and justified criminal action.
The State contended that these allegations, taken at face value, constituted an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the police were right in registering an FIR and conducting investigation.
Court’s consideration of the PDS Control Order
To decide whether the FIR disclosed any offence, the Court examined the relevant clauses of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
First, the Court looked at Clause 17, which lays down the procedure for changing the storage place of essential commodities or the business place of a PDS dealer. Under this clause, if a licensee wants to change the storage or business place mentioned in the licence, he must submit a written application to the licensing authority.
The written application must state the reasons and give identification details of the proposed new place. The licensing authority has to decide whether to accept or reject the application within a fortnight from the date of receipt. If the application is accepted, necessary changes are to be made in the licence and in the licence register.
The clause further provides that if no decision is taken within a fortnight, the licensee may begin storing or selling essential commodities at the proposed place, but only with prior permission of the District Officer.
Clause 17 also recognizes emergency situations. In cases like earthquake, flood, or sudden damage to the building, the licensee may shift the storage or business place without prior permission of the licensing authority. However, even in such emergencies, the licensee must give written information to the licensing authority within 72 hours.
The Court then referred to Clause 24 of the same Control Order. This clause provides that violation of any provision of the Order is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It clearly states that a violator, including a licensee, who breaches any provision of the Order, is liable to punishment under that section.
Application of law to the allegations
On the basis of these clauses, the Court drew an important conclusion. It held that if a PDS dealer carries on business at a place different from the one mentioned in the licence, and does so in violation of Clause 17, then a criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is justified.
Thus, the Court accepted the State’s argument that shifting of the business place without following the prescribed procedure can itself amount to an offence, quite apart from allegations of non-supply of food grains.
Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the petitioner claimed to have given written information to the Supply Officer and to have received an oral approval for shifting his business place. However, the Court made it clear that the “authenticity” of such a plea could only be examined during police investigation.
In other words, whether any written application was actually submitted, whether it contained required details, whether the Supply Officer had verbally approved the change, and whether inspections were done at the new place are all factual questions. These questions can only be answered by collecting evidence in investigation, not at the stage of a quashing petition.
Defence cannot be the basis for quashing
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s pleas were in the nature of defence. He had been named as an accused in the FIR. His version, seeking to justify his conduct, could not be treated as a sufficient ground to throw away the FIR itself.
The Court also dealt with the petitioner’s argument that the complaining consumers were not attached to his PDS shop. It held that this too was a matter which had to be verified by the investigating agency. Whether the complainants were card-holders linked to his dealership is a factual issue. It must be checked during investigation by verifying records and taking statements.
The Court reiterated that the defence taken by an accused cannot be the foundation for quashing an FIR at the threshold. The settled legal position is that, while deciding such petitions, courts look only at the allegations in the FIR and do not appreciate disputed facts or examine the strength of the defence.
Final decision
After considering the submissions of both sides and the legal framework, the Court concluded that the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
There were clear allegations of non-supply of food grains and of shifting the shop without proper permission. These allegations, if found true after investigation, would amount to violation of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, attracting Clause 24 and thereby Section 7 of the Act.
In this view, the Court held that no case was made out for quashing the FIR. It dismissed the criminal writ petition. As a result, the investigation in Naubatpur P.S. Case No.121 of 2019 will proceed in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for PDS dealers across Bihar. It shows that the Patna High Court will not lightly stop criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act when there are specific allegations of non-supply of rations or breach of licence conditions.
For dealers, the decision highlights the need to strictly follow the procedure in Clause 17 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 before shifting their shop or storage place. Written applications and permissions are critical. Oral permissions or informal understandings may not protect them from criminal cases.
For ration-card holders and complainants, the decision reinforces that their complaints can lead to police investigation and that the High Court will not interfere at an early stage merely because the dealer offers a different version.
More broadly, the judgment underlines a key principle: disputes about facts, such as whether complaints are genuine or whether permission was taken, should normally be decided by investigation and trial, not stopped at the FIR stage.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court quash an FIR against a PDS dealer for alleged non-supply of food grains and shifting shop without proper permission, when the dealer claims he had given information and obtained oral approval?
Answer: No. These are matters of defence and factual dispute, which must be examined by the investigating agency. The FIR, which alleges violation of Clause 17 and Clause 24 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, discloses a prima facie offence and cannot be quashed. - Issue: Does carrying on PDS business at a place different from that mentioned in the licence attract criminal liability under the Essential Commodities Act?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that violation of Clause 17 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 by running the shop from an unapproved location justifies criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, in view of Clause 24 of the Order.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments or case law are cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.657 of 2019; arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No.121 of 2019
Case Title: Abhay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (2) PLJR 1215
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5
Nature of the case: Criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Date of Judgment: 22.04.2019
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjNjU3IzIwMTkjMSNO-Bis–ak1–2HQu0jo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
