P L D 1958 Dacca 137 (PLP)

CHAKRABORTI, J.‑This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Tippera to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and the proceedings quashed. The petitioner is the owner of a mill at Comilla and the mill takes up crushing of wheat and pulses under orders of the customers. The co‑accused Manmohan Saba was in charge of the shop and the co‑accused Manik was the weighman of the petitioner. On the 6th of September 1956, Manmohan and Manik were arrested by the Anti‑Corruption Branch of the Police Department in the absence of the petitioner for having sold one maund of atta to one Kanu Mia at Rs. 50 per maund thereby contravening the provisions of the Food Grains Control Order and committed an offence punishable under section 6 of Ordinance X of 1956. The petitioner was thereafter arrested for the same offence and the police after investigation submitted charge‑sheet on the 24th of September 1956, against the petitioner and his officer and weighman. The petitioner then moved the Special Magistrate who was in seisin of the case for discharging him on the ground that the accusation against him was groundless, and that petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated the 2nd of October 1956. The petitioner thereafter moved the District Magistrate for reference to the High Court for setting aside the order of the Special Magistrate passed on the 2nd of October 1956. The application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate by his order dated the 22nd of July 1957. The petitioner then moved this Court in the exercise of its criminal revisional jurisdiction and obtained this Rule. Mr. Mazhar Hassanain appears on behalf of the petitioner while Mr. Abdul Hye Choudhury represents the State. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged three points before this Court. Firstly, he contends that there was no contravention under section 3 of Ordinance X of 1956 ; secondly he argues that no offence was made out against the petitioner ; and thirdly he urges that the Magis trate had no jurisdiction to take up the case. Mr. Abdul Hye Choudhury has contended that so far as the point that no offence was made out against the petitioner is concerned, the stage has not yet come for decision of that question. Regarding the other two points, he argues that really the petitioner contravened Notification No. 5918‑F. D., dated the 2nd of July 1956, notified under sub‑paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the East Bengal Food Stuff Price Control and Anti‑Hoarding Order of 1953. It is clear, on the face of the proceedings, that no offence has been made out against the petitioner. He is only the owner of the mill and had nothing to do with the transaction in question. He was not found present when the transaction took place. There is nothing to show from the police‑report and otherwise that the other two co‑accused acted under his direction. So, the petitioner is being, unnecessarily harassed for an alleged offence which on the face of it is not made out against the petitioner. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the other two points raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the proceedings be quashed. Z. A. S. Rule made absolute.