Patna High Court

Rajiv Kumar and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 12 May 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that prima facie material exists to support cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore the application under Section 482 is dismissed.

Summary

Petitioners Rajiv Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged black‑marketing of LPG cylinders, based on a raid prompted by secret information and the recovery of cylinders from a co‑accused. The Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, discarding IPC charges, and the Revisional Court affirmed this order. The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance order, arguing that no material showed a violation of a control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction and held that the prosecution had prima facie established a contravention of a control order, which is a sine qua non for liability under Section 7. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the cognizance order and dismissed the application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is illegal and liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case of contravention of a control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Whether the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised at the stage of cognizance to quash the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000

Subjects

Essential Commodities Act
Section 7
black marketing
LPG cylinders
Section 482 CrPC
quashing criminal proceedings
cognizance
control order
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42678 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2011 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Rajiv Kumar
2. Sanjiv Kumar. Both are sons of Ram Lochan Yadav, Resident of Bank Bazar
Bachhwara, P.S. - Bachhwara, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Virendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

10 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

quashing the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case

No.116 of 2011, wherein the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.C. Act’)

against the present petitioners and one other accused person, as

well as for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the

learned District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai (hereinafter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
2/10

referred to as ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No.314

of 2016, whereby the learned Revisional Court affirmed the

order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate and

dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of

a written report submitted by the Block Supply Officer,

Bachhwara, a case being Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 116 of 2011

came to be instituted alleging that on 10.10.2011, pursuant to

secret information regarding black marketing of L.P.G. cylinders

by the proprietor of “M/s Uttama Indane Agency” (Petitioner

No.1) and his brother (Petitioner No.2), a raid was conducted

near the godown of the said agency. During the raid, one co-

accused, namely Bipin Jha, was apprehended with five L.P.G.

cylinders on a motorcycle and consumer gas cards and a seizure

list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses and

during the inspection/visit of the agency premises, several

materials/equipment were found, which were being used for the

unauthorized transfer of gas from one cylinder to another.

Petitioner No.2, Sanjiv Kumar was also arrested from the place

of occurrence. It was alleged that the said co-accused, Bipin Jha

disclosed that he was acting in connivance with the present

petitioners. It was further alleged that the accused persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
3/10

including petitioners herein were engaged in black marketing of

L.P.G. cylinders in violation of the provisions of the Liquefied

Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order,

2000. On the basis of the said allegations, the aforesaid case

was registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. After

investigation, charge-sheet bearing C.S. No. 199 of 2011 was

submitted on 30.11.2011.

4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

the learned Magistrate, vide the order dated 08.08.2014, took

cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act

against the petitioners and one other accused person, while

discarding the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code for want of sufficient material. The aforesaid

order of cognizance was subsequently affirmed by the learned

Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2016 vide the

impugned order dated 04.08.2016, which is also under challenge

in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the E.C.

Act is wholly illegal and has been passed in a mechanical

manner without there being any material on record to prima
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
4/10

facie establish violation of any order issued under Section 3 of

the E.C. Act, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence

under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It is submitted that the entire

prosecution case rests upon mere suspicion of black marketing,

whereas neither during the raid nor in course of investigation

any discrepancy in stock, irregularity in distribution, or violation

of licensing conditions has been found against the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that even the learned Magistrate has

itself found no material to proceed under Sections 419 and 420

Indian Penal Code, which clearly reflects absence of any

dishonest or fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery

of five cylinders was made from a co-accused outside the

premises of the petitioners and the same were admittedly linked

to genuine consumers, whose consumer cards were also

recovered and who, during investigation, supported the case that

they had authorized the co-accused to collect cylinders on their

behalf. He submits that no complaint has ever been made either

by any consumer or by the oil company regarding any

malpractice by the petitioners, who are bonafide distributors

since long. He next submits that continuation of the criminal

proceeding, in absence of any foundational facts constituting an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
5/10

offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court and, therefore, both the impugned

orders are liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the

prayer for quashing and submits that the impugned order of

cognizance has been passed on the basis of materials collected

during investigation, which prima facie disclose commission of

offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Learned APP further

submits that the allegations relate to violation of the Liquefied

Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order,

2000, which is a control order issued under Section 3 of the E.C.

Act, and therefore the essential ingredients for attracting Section

7 of the E.C. Act are prima facie made out. He further submits

that the recovery of L.P.G. cylinders from the possession of the

co-accused and the information regarding black marketing

which provide sufficient ground to proceed against the

petitioners, and at the stage of cognizance, detailed appreciation

of evidence is not required.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available

on record, this Court proceeds to examine the scope of its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
6/10

Procedure in matters relating to quashing of criminal

proceedings. It is well settled that the power under Section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and

with circumspection, particularly where the allegations in the

F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation disclose

commission of a cognizable offence. At the stage of cognizance,

the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence

or adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations, rather it is

only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made

out from the materials available on record.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to examine the

legislative requirement of Section 7 of the E.C. Act, which is

reproduced as under:

“7. Penalties.― [(1) If any person
contravenes any order made under Section
3,― (a) he shall be punishable,― (i) in the
case of an order made with reference to
clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of
that section, with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year and shall also
be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any
other order, with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three months but
which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine: Provided that the court
may, for any adequate and special reasons to
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than three months; (b) any property in
respect of which the order has been
contravened shall be forfeited to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
7/10

Government; (c) any package, covering or
receptacle in which the property is found
and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance used in carrying the property
shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to
the Government……………………”

10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it

manifest that for attracting the penal consequences under

Section 7 of the E.C. Act, the sine qua non is the existence of a

contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act.

In other words, mere allegation or suspicion of irregularity is

not sufficient unless it is demonstrated that the accused has

violated any specific control order governing production,

supply, distribution, or pricing of the essential commodity. Thus,

the prosecution is required to prima facie establish violation of a

valid control order under Section 3 of the E.C. Act.

11. In the present case, the allegations in the F.I.R.

disclose that acting upon secret information regarding black

marketing of L.P.G. cylinders, a raid was conducted near the

godown of the agency of the petitioners, during which five

domestic L.P.G. cylinders, consumer gas cards and other articles

were recovered from the possession of the co-accused and

further during the inspection of the agency premises, various

materials and equipment were found, which were being used for

the unauthorized transfer of gas from one cylinder to another.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
8/10

The prosecution case further alleges that the co-accused

disclosed involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged

illegal distribution and black marketing of cylinders, which are

in violation of the provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas

(Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. It is

relevant to mention here that the Liquefied Petroleum Gas

(Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 is a

Control Order promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 3 of of the E.C. Act.

13. In such background, this Court finds that there is

material on record to demonstrate contravention of any order

issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act, which is a sine qua non

for attracting liability under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The

submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no

violation of Section 3 of the the E.C. Act is made out is a matter

of trial and at this stage it can not be adjudicated.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Babu

Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 490,

has observed with respect to attracting liability under section 7

of the E.C. Act, as herein under:

“5. Section 7 refers to contravention of any
order made under Section 3. It is essential
for bringing in application of Section 7 to
show that some order has been made under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
9/10

Section 3 and the order has been
contravened. Section 3 deals with powers to
control production, supply, distribution etc.
of essential commodities. Exercise of such
powers, can be done by “order”. According
to Section 2(c), “notified order” means an
order notified in the Official Gazette, and
Section 2(cc) provides that “order” includes
a direction issued thereunder.”

16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this

Court is of the considered opinion that once the prosecution case

specifically alleges contravention of a control order issued under

Section 3 of the E.C. Act and materials have been collected

during investigation in support thereof, the correctness or

sufficiency of such materials cannot be examined in detail in a

petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. At the

stage of cognizance, a meticulous analysis of evidence is

impermissible. Further this Court does not find that the case

falls within any of the categories warranting interference in

exercise of inherent powers as laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal

and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as prima facie

materials exist for proceeding against the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded to hold that

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42678 of 2016(10) dt.12-05-2026
10/10

17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

08.08.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate in connection with

Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 116 of 2011, whereby cognizance has

been taken of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act

against the petitioners, as well as the order dated 04.08.2016

passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision

No. 314 of 2016 affirming the same, do not warrant interference

by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

18. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

stands dismissed.

19. Considering that in the present case, the F.I.R. was

lodged in year 2011 and the cognizance of the offence was taken

on 08.08.2014, the trial is required to be expedited. The learned

Trial Court is directed to take steps for early disposal of the case

in accordance with law.

20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

Court concerned forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.