Patna High Court
Afsana Begam and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to raise the grounds before the trial court and a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.
Summary
The petitioners, Afsana Begam (a PDS dealer) and her husband Nizamuddin, challenged an order dated 02‑03‑2016 that took cognizance of an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. They argued that the trial, which is to be conducted summarily, had been unduly delayed for several years, causing hardship. The petitioners sought to withdraw the application while reserving the right to raise all their grounds before the trial court at the final hearing, and requested that the trial be completed within three months. The High Court accepted the withdrawal, granted liberty to raise the grounds later, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial, preferably within six months of receiving the order. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with a directive for speedy disposal of the substantive trial.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition under the Essential Commodities Act can be withdrawn with liberty to raise the same grounds before the trial court at a later stage.
- Whether the trial court can be directed by the High Court to expedite the trial of an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 7
Subjects
- Essential Commodities Act
- Section 7
- trial delay
- withdrawal of petition
- expeditious trial
- PDS dealer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4814 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2015 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Afsana Begam, Wife of Nizamuddin @ Md. Nizamuddin
2. Nizamuddin @ Md. Nizamuddin, Son of Late Januddin, Both residents of
Village- Kanhariya, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.
Mr. Roop Kishan, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 06-02-2026 Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the instant matter relates to the Essential
Commodities Act (in short, ‘EC Act’) and a prayer to set aside
the order dated 02.03.2016 by which the cognizance of the
offence under section 7 of the EC Act has been taken against the
petitioners, has been made in this application. The petitioner No.
1 was a PDS dealer at the time of the alleged occurrence but the
petitioner No. 2 was not a PDS dealer and he has been made
accused in this matter mainly on account of being the husband of
the petitioner No. 1. It is further submitted that the trial of the
petitioners for the offence under section 7 of the EC Act is to be
conducted summarily, however, due to the said reason, despite
the lapse of several years, there is no progress in the trial of the
petitioners. As per the provisions of the EC Act, the trial is to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4814 of 2017(4) dt.06-02-2026
2/2
concluded by the same presiding officer who took all the
evidences and due to the delay in the trial of the petitioners, they
are facing much hardship.
2. After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with
a liberty to raise all the grounds taken by them in this application
before the trial court at the time of final hearing and further,
prays to direct the trial court to dispose of the petitioners’ trial
within three months.
3. Considering the aforesaid submissions and prayer,
the instant petition stands disposed of as being withdrawn with
giving the petitioners the liberty to raise all the grounds taken by
them in this application before the trial court at the time of final
hearing.
4. As the petitioners’ trial relates to the year 2016 and
as per petitioners’ counsel there is no progress in their trial, so
considering this aspect, the trial court is directed to expedite and
decide the petitioners’ trial at the earliest preferably in the next
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s
order.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…