Patna High Court
Pawan Kumar Sah @ Pavan Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, finding a prima facie case under the IPC and Essential Commodities Act and therefore refusing to quash the FIR.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers/father, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking quash of FIR No. 373/2022 which alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 353, 34 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for storing a large quantity of PDS‑subsidised rice at the father’s residence. They contended that the rice was lawfully purchased from farmers, produced receipts, and argued that they were not PDS dealers, so Section 7 was inapplicable. The State countered that the receipts did not match the farmers named, the volume of rice indicated intent to black‑market, and that a prima facie case existed under the IPC provisions. The Court corrected a typographical error regarding family relationships, examined the allegations, and held that the petitioners had not disproved the FIR’s basis. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
- Whether Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act applies to the petitioners who are not PDS dealers.
- Whether the receipts produced substantiate the claim of lawful purchase of the rice.
- Whether the allegations under IPC sections 420, 353 and 34 establish a prima facie case of cheating, criminal force and common intention.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 353, 420
Subjects
- criminal writ
- quashing FIR
- Essential Commodities Act
- Section 7
- IPC 420
- IPC 353
- IPC 34
- black marketing
- PDS
- prima facie case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.337 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2022 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Pawan Kumar Sah @ Pavan Kumar Sah Son of Vijay Sah Resident of
Village- Fatehpur Mubarak ward No 3 PS- Mahua, Dist- Vaishali
2. Raj Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar son of Vijay Sah Resident of Village-
Fatehpur Mubarak ward No 3 PS- Mahua, Dist- Vaishali
3. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sah son of Fakira Sah Resident of Village- Fatehpur
Mubarak ward No 3 PS- Mahua, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies
Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur bihar
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, Dist- Vaishali bihar
4. The Block Supply Officer, Mahua, Dist- Vaishali at Hajipur bihar
5. The Station House Officer, Mahua PS bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to G.P.4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard both sides.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed
praying for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) bearing
Mahua P.S. Case No. 373 of 2022, lodged under Section 420,
353/34 of the IPC and 7 of Essential Commodities Act instituted
on the basis of the written complaint filed by the
informant/respondent no. 4 before the SHO concerned.
3. From perusal of the F.I.R. it is evident that on
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/8
raid being conducted, a huge quantity of PDS subsidized rice
was found stored at Vijay Sah's doorstep, and a significant
amount of rice was also found stored in his house. The quantity
of food grains (rice) available after verification is as follows:-
01. 190 bags of Arwa rice, including 181 bags of
plastic and 9 bags of jute, totaling 85.90 quintals.
02. 51 bags of parboiled rice, out of which 47 bags
are plastic and 04 bags are jute, totaling 23.55 quintals.
Total 241 (two hundred forty one) sacks weighing-
109.45 quintals.
4. Nearby villagers identified Vijay Sah's sons,
Rajkumar Sah and Pawan Kumar, as the owners of the stored
rice, which was also confirmed by Rajkumar Sah and Pawan
Kumar. Rajkumar Sah and Pawan Kumar were questioned and
asked to provide evidence regarding ownership of the stored
rice. Instead of providing evidence regarding the stored rice,
they attempted to influence the investigation by exhorting the
surrounding villagers through family members, creating a tense
and violent atmosphere.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No. 3 is the father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner
no. 1 is a trader and engaged in the business of sale and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
3/8
purchase of food grains and carrying its business with the name
and style of M/S. R.P. Enterprises vide Registration No.
10HNSPK2659P1Z8 and the petitioner no. 1 purchased the food
grains/rice from the farmers. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have no
concern with the alleged offence, despite which they have been
made accused illegally and arbitrarily and the entire prosecution
has been maliciously instituted. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted through para-5 of the writ petition that
petitioner no. 1 has purchased the boiled and Arwa rice from the
farmers, namely, Ashok Kumar Sah, Shiv Chandra Sah, Abhay
Sah, Ranjeet Singh, Rajendra Singh, Arvind Sah, Ram Ekwal
Singh and other farmers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
enclosed the photostat copies of receipts in proof of said
purchase, running from page no. 16 to 60 (Annexure-P/1). He
further submits that as rice is a free sale commodity, anyone can
purchase, store and sell rice and no offence is made out under
Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that
in para-5 of the writ petition it has been pleaded that petitioner
no. 1, being the proprietor of M/S. R.P. Enterprises, is engaged
in the business of sale and purchase of food grains from the
farmers. Petitioner no. 1 has purchased rice from the farmers,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
4/8
namely, Ashok Kumar Sah, Shiv Chandra Sah, Abhay Sah,
Ranjeet Singh, Rajendra Singh, Arvind Sah, Ram Ekwal Singh
and other farmers and he has enclosed the receipt in proof of
said purchase, running from page no. 16 to 60 (Annexure-P/1).
Learned counsel for the State has emphatically submitted that
the names of farmers indicated in para-5 from whom food grains
are purchased do not tally with the names mentioned in the
receipts enclosed. Learned counsel for the State has highlighted
that the assertion in para-5 of the writ petition has not been
supported by Annexure-P/1, meaning thereby, the facts which
were asserted by the petitioners has not been supported by any
material and the plea as taken by the petitioners is without
having any basis and there is recovery of huge quantity of rice at
a particular place of the house of petitioner No. 3 and such
storage of huge quantity of rice reflects that the very purpose of
keeping such a huge amount of rice was for black marketing
purpose and when query was made to produce the material for
keeping such a huge quantity of rice, instead of providing
justification for keeping such a huge quantity, they resorted to
take the help of nearby people and tried to confine the persons
who were in lawful discharge of duties and it is asserted by the
informant that with the help of additional force provided at
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
5/8
Thana level, anyhow informant and her team went outside the
P.O.
7. On 17.03.2026 a detailed order has been passed
which reads as under:-
Learned counsel for the petitioners
has challenged the F.I.R. bearing Mahua P.S.
Case No. 373 of 2022 lodged under Sections
420, 353 and 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act instituted on the
basis of written complaint filed by the informant
before the S.H.O. concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the State has
filed a counter affidavit. He has submitted that
the things which were recovered from the shop
of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos. 2 and 3
are sons of the petitioner no.1 and they had also
participated in confiscation proceeding as it has
been submitted through para 7 of the counter
affidavit that on the basis of recommendation
made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, a
confiscation case has been initiated against the
petitioners to confiscate the seized food grains
vide Confiscation Case No. 04/2022-23 and
pursuant to the order passed in confiscation
case, the seized food grains were auctioned in
the open market. Learned counsel for the State
has cited the case of State of Haryana vs.
Chajan Lal and Ors. wherein Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
6/8
Court has laid down the parameters for
quashing of F.I.R. under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The guidelines
have been elaborated in para 22 of the counter
affidavit for quashing the F.I.R. In para 24, it
has been specifically mentioned that there is a
specific allegation against the petitioners in the
F.I.R. and a prima facie case is made out
against them. As such, the petitioners are not
entitled for the relief sought for by them in the
present writ application. Further, in para-25, it
has been submitted that F.I.R. has not been
lodged only under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act rather the offence committed
by the petitioners also attracts the relevant
provisions of the I.P.C. which has not been dealt
with by the petitioners in the present writ
application. In light of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, present writ
application is liable to be dismissed and the
present F.I.R. reflects the offence as alleged
against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that on account of
non-availability of arguing counsel, he is unable
to argue the case, so he seeks a short
adjournment.
4. List this case on 18.03.2026”
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
7/8
8. From perusal of the order dated 17.03.2026, it
appears that an inadvertent typographical error has crept in para-
2 wherein it has been stated that learned counsel for the State
has submitted petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sons of the petitioner
no.1. whereas petitioner No.3 is the father and petitioner Nos. 1
and 2 are his sons.
9. Accordingly, para-2 of the order dated
17.03.2026 is corrected and modified to the extent that
petitioner No.3 be read as the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
10. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not P.D.S. dealers, so
Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act is not attracted against
them.
11. Considering all the aspect of the case, from
perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is direct allegation
against the petitioners that a huge quantity of PDS subsidized
rice was found stored at Vijay Sah's doorstep, and a significant
amount of rice was also found stored in his house. There is also
direct allegation against the petitioners of obstructing the
government servants from discharging their official duty. In this
way, prima facie offence alleged in the FIR attracts Sections-
420, 353, 34 of I.P.C. and Section-7 of Essential Commodities
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.337 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
8/8
Act.
12. In view of the above, the contention of learned
counsel for the State is quite tenable and sustainable that the
assertion in para 5 of the writ petition is not corroborated by the
receipt of purchase of rice (Annexure-P/1) as the names of
farmers indicated in para-5 from whom rice is claimed to have
been purchased do not tally with the names of farmers
mentioned in the receipts enclosed.
13. Considering all the material aspects of the case,
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as also
materials available on record, this Court finds no merit in the
present criminal writ petition.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition
stands dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
U T
Checking your session…