Patna High Court
GAURI SHANKAR KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The criminal prosecution cannot continue as the licence cancellation, the foundation of the case, has been set aside; consequently, the FIR is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Gauri Shankar Kumar, a seed business proprietor, faced an FIR under Section 420 IPC, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 9 of the Seeds Act alleging irregularities in seed handling and registration. The licence of his establishment had been cancelled following an inspection report, but the High Court earlier quashed that cancellation and restored the licence. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the basis of the criminal case – the licence cancellation – no longer existed. The Court examined precedents establishing that findings in departmental or adjudicatory proceedings, when exonerating on merits, preclude continuation of criminal prosecution on the same facts. Holding that the root cause of the prosecution had been removed, the Court quashed the FIR. The application was allowed and the FIR dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR can stand when the licence cancellation, which formed the basis of the criminal complaint, has been set aside by a higher court.
- Whether findings in departmental/adjudicatory proceedings that exonerate the accused on merits bar subsequent criminal prosecution on the same facts.
- Whether the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases overrides the lower standard applied in adjudicatory proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quash FIR
- Section 420 IPC
- Essential Commodities Act
- Seeds Act
- licence cancellation
- standard of proof
- departmental proceedings
- criminal prosecution
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65172 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-512 Year-2018 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
GAURI SHANKAR KUMAR S/o Arun Prasad Sah Resident of Har Har
Mahadev Chauk, Harrakh Road, P.S.-Kotwali Chauk, District- Begusarai and
Proprietor of M/S Mahalaxmi Seeds Corporation, Ambedkar Chauk,
Kachahari, Road, Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Adv.
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Preety Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Raman, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing the FIR bearing Barauni P.S. Case No.
512 of 2018 registered for the offence under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 and under Section 9 of the Seeds Act.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant
of this case, namely Sri Rajesh Sharma, In-Charge Deputy
Director, Bihar State Seed & Organic Certification Agency,
Bhagalpur, had submitted a written inspection report dated
31.10.2018 before the Officer In-charge of the Barauni Police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/12
Station, Begusarai, alleging therein that on 30.10.2018 and
31.10.2018, a raid was conducted by his team at the
establishment of the petitioner ie. Mahalaxmi Seeds
Corporation, Ambedkar Chauk, Kachahari Road, Begusarai.
During the raid, it is alleged, that certain irregularities were
detected in the petitioner's establishment. It is further alleged
that the Seed Certification Inspector, Begusarai, namely, Sri
Shashikant Kumar, was not given any prior intimation regarding
intake of seeds by the petitioner's establishment.
4. It is further alleged that, at the time of intake of
seeds, no inspection of the petitioner's establishment was done
by the Seed Certification Inspector. Furthermore, the raw seeds
were not categorized as per the requisite categorization
stipulations ie. farmer-wise, lot-wise etc. Neither was this
categorization applied on the processed seeds. The raw seeds
were kept next to the certification machine in such a manner
that it was difficult to quantify the amount of seeds as per the
categorization.
5. It is also alleged that no documents were shown
with respect to the source of the seeds and the farmers to whom
the same would be made available. The inspection report further
alleges that, perhaps, the seeds were procured from farmers in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/12
Bhojpur, Ara, but no relevant transportation documents were
furnished. Upon a quick look, it appeared that the seeds were of
varied shapes and colors, including the presence of moisture. It
is also alleged that the processing and packing of processed
seeds was taking place at the same place where the dump of raw
seeds was kept. The inspection report further alleges that the
tags of the seed certification agency was found in the
safeguarding of the employees of the petitioner's establishment
whereas the same have to be in the safekeeping of the Seeds
Inspector and the packing should also be done in the presence of
the Seeds Inspector. The inspection committee also took a look
at the videography done on 30.10.2018 and came to the
conclusion that intake of masoor seeds was being done through
tractors, pickup vans and trucks. As such, the petitioner's
establishment, in the absence of any valid documents, was held
liable for converting masoor foodgrain, procured from
elsewhere, into seeds and that the same are in contravention to
the rules and regulations governing the seed registration. The
inspection report ended with a recommendation to cancel the
registration of the petitioner's establishment with immediate
effect and to blacklist the petitioner's establishment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
4/12
that the Petitioner's certificate of registration and license issued
by the competent authorities under the seeds act and the seeds
rules were also cancelled by the authority concerned vide letter
number 1305/basoca dated 01.11.2018 and letter number 1310/
basoca dated 01.11.2018 and the same was challenged before
this court in writ petition and vide an order dated 05.04.2019
this Court has quashed the order cancelling registration
certificate and license of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that a liberty was granted to the order dated 05.04.2019 to
proceed afresh in accordance with law but despite the liberty,
the authorities constituted under the Seeds Act 1966 and the
Seeds Rules 1968 and the Seeds Control Order 1983 did not
proceed against the petitioner any further and accepted the order
of this court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
the Director, Bihar state seed and organic certification agency
vide letter number 261/basoca Patna dated 16.04.2019 revoked
with immediate effect the order of cancellation of all licenses
and registration of the petitioner in light of the order of this
Court and accordingly, the petitioner's certificate of registration
and licenses issued under the Seeds Act 1966 and the Seeds
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
5/12
Rules 1968 and the Seeds Control Order 1983 have been
renewed from time to time and even at present, the
establishment of the petitioner is fully functional on the strength
of such permissions granted by the competent authorities under
statute.
9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this court dated
21.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13719 of 2017 in the matter
of Shiv Kumar Kejriwal versus The State of Bihar which is in a
similar circumstance where this Court quashed the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner in the wake of the discharge
of the concerned petitioner in civil proceedings of cancellation
of certificate of registration initiated on same very set of
allegations.
10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application of the petitioner.
11. I have considered the submission of the parties.
12. From the perusal of the records it appears that the
license of the petitioner was cancelled on account of some
irregularities found during the inspection but subsequently a
coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2019
passed in C.W.J.C No. 22987 of 2018 titled as ‘Gauri Shankar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
6/12
Kumar vs State and Ors.’ had quashed the cancellation of the
registration certificate and license of the petitioner and
subsequently the respondents had restored the license of the
petitioner and thereafter the license of the petitioner has been
renewed from time to time and is still sustaining.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam
Chand Vs. ITO reported in (1982) 2 SCC 543 had quashed the
prosecution under IT Act when the assessment order was
sustained. Once the basis goes everything goes.
14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs Deputy Superintendent of
Police, EOW, CBI & Anr, (2020) 9 SCC 636, has held as
under:-
“8. A number of judgments have held that the
standard of proof in a departmental
proceeding, being based on
preponderance of probability is
somewhat lower than the standard of
proof in a criminal proceeding where
the case has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya v.
State of Bihar [P.S. Rajya v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 897] , the question before the
Court was posed as follows: (SCC pp.
2-3, para 3)
“3. The short question that arises
for our consideration in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
7/12
appeal is whether the respondent is
justified in pursuing the
prosecution against the appellant
under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947
notwithstanding the fact that on an
identical charge the appellant was
exonerated in the departmental
proceedings in the light of a report
submitted by the Central Vigilance
Commission and concurred by the
Union Public Service
Commission.”
9. This Court then went on to state: (P.S. Rajya
case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar,
(1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] ,
SCC p. 5, para 17)
“17. At the outset we may point out
that the learned counsel for the
respondent could not but accept the
position that the standard of proof
required to establish the guilt in a
criminal case is far higher than the
standard of proof required to
establish the guilt in the
departmental proceedings. He also
accepted that in the present case, the
charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal
proceedings is one and the same. He
did not dispute the findings rendered
in the departmental proceedings and
the ultimate result of it.”
10. This being the case, the Court then held:
(P.S. Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
8/12
897] , SCC p. 9, para 23)
“23. Even though all these facts
including the report of the Central
Vigilance Commission were brought
to the notice of the High Court,
unfortunately, the High Court took a
view [Prabhu Saran Rajya v. State of
Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No.
5212 of 1992, order dated 3-8-1993
(Pat)] that the issues raised had to be
gone into in the final proceedings
and the report of the Central
Vigilance Commission, exonerating
the appellant of the same charge in
departmental proceedings would not
conclude the criminal case against
the appellant. We have already held
that for the reasons given, on the
peculiar facts of this case, the
criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellant cannot be
pursued. Therefore, we do not agree
with the view taken by the High
Court as stated above. These are the
reasons for our order dated 27-3-
1996 for allowing the appeal and
quashing the impugned criminal
proceedings and giving
consequential reliefs.”
11. In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.
[Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of
W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 721], this Court held as
follows: (SCC pp. 594-96, paras 26,
29 & 31)
“26. We may observe that the
standard of proof in a criminal
case is much higher than that of
the adjudication proceedings.
The Enforcement Directorate has
not been able to prove its case in
the adjudication proceedings and
the appellant has been
exonerated on the same
allegation. The appellant is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
9/12
facing trial in the criminal case.
Therefore, in our opinion, the
determination of facts in the
adjudication proceedings cannot
be said to be irrelevant in the
criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap
[B.N. Kashyap v. Crown, 1944
SCC OnLine Lah 46 : AIR 1945
Lah 23] the Full Bench had not
considered the effect of a finding
of fact in a civil case over the
criminal cases and that will be
evident from the following
passage of the said judgment:
(SCC OnLine Lah: AIR p. 27)
‘… I must, however, say that in
answering the question, I
have only referred to civil
cases where the actions are in
personam and not those
where the proceedings or
actions are in rem. Whether a
finding of fact arrived at in
such proceedings or actions
would be relevant in criminal
cases, it is unnecessary for
me to decide in this case.
When that question arises for
determination, the provisions
of Section 41 of the Evidence
Act, will have to be carefully
examined.’
29. We do not have the slightest
hesitation in accepting the
broad submission of Mr
Malhotra that the finding in
an adjudication proceeding
is not binding in the
proceeding for criminal
prosecution. A person held
liable to pay penalty in
adjudication proceedings
cannot necessarily be held
guilty in a criminal trial.
Adjudication proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
10/12
are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence
of a little higher degree
whereas in a criminal case
the entire burden to prove
beyond all reasonable
doubt lies on the
prosecution.
31. It is trite that the standard of
proof required in criminal
proceedings is higher than
that required before the
adjudicating authority and
in case the accused is
exonerated before the
adjudicating authority
whether his prosecution on
the same set of facts can be
allowed or not is the
precise question which falls
for determination in this
case.”
12. After referring to various judgments,
this Court then culled out the ratio of those
decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of
W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] ,
SCC p. 598)
“38. The ratio which can be
culled out from these decisions can broadly
be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings
and criminal prosecution
can be launched
simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication
proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal
prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication
proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent
in nature to each other;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
11/12
(iv) The finding against the
person facing prosecution in
the adjudication proceedings
is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal
prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings
by the Enforcement
Directorate is not
prosecution by a competent
court of law to attract the
provisions of Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section
300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the
adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing
trial for identical violation
will depend upon the nature
of finding. If the exoneration
in adjudication proceedings
is on technical ground and
not on merit, prosecution
may continue; and (vii) In
case of exoneration,
however, on merits where the
allegation is found to be not
sustainable at all and the
person held innocent,
criminal prosecution on the
same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be
allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being
the higher standard of proof
in criminal cases.”
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal
v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p.
598, para 39)
“39. In our opinion,
therefore, the yardstick
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65172 of 2019(2) dt.08-01-2026
12/12
would be to judge as to
whether the allegation in the
adjudication proceedings as
well as the proceeding for
prosecution is identical and
the exoneration of the person
concerned in the
adjudication proceedings is
on merits. In case it is found
on merit that there is no
contravention of the
provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceedings,
the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse
of the process of the court.”
15. In this case also the order of cancellation of the
licence has been set-aside by the appellate authority which was
the very basis for initiating the criminal prosecution. Since the
root of the criminal prosecution has been removed, therefore,
the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue
on the same grounds.
16. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the
FIR bearing Barauni P.S. Case No. 512 of 2018 is hereby
quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…