Jharkhand High Court
Nand Lal Sahu ? Nand Lal Sao vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 3 October, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5470 of 2007
Nand Lal Sahu @ Nand Lal Saw ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & others ........Respondents.
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : J. C. to S.C.II
--
03/01.10.2012Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has sought quashing of the entire confiscation proceeding arising out of Confiscation Case No. 15-R-28/2006-07, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no.2), whereby the Respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has initiated the proceeding to confiscate 145 bags of wheat (containing 50 Kg. each bags) weighing 72.05 Quintals. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the order dated 22nd January, 2007 by which the District Supply Officer, Ranchi directed the authority to distribute the said seized 145 bags of wheat through Public Distribution System at Below Poverty Level rates.
It is the contention of the petitioner that he purchased 168 bags of wheat ( containing 50 Kg. each bags) weighing 84 Quintals from different farmers/Retail Businessmen of the locality after payment of required tax etc. to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ranchi, which issued a valid certificate/receipt in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was taken by surprise when the police seized the aforesaid articles on 31st October, 2006 without any basis or any irregularity or the petitioner having violated any of the orders under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. For the said occurrence a police case was also registered against the petitioner and other persons of the locality being Argora P. S. Case No. 300 of 2006 for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The instant confiscation proceeding under challenge has been initiated in respect of the same seized articles from the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. In the aforesaid confiscation case notices were issued upon the petitioner and the petitioner has thereafter come before this Court for the proper relief.
It is also contention of the petitioner by relying upon the judgment in the case of Birendra Prasad passed in W. P. ( C) No. 3800 of 2006, Asiya Shah Vs. State of Jharkahnd, reported in 2002(2) JLJR 391 that the confiscation proceedings are not maintainable in respect of the commodities which have been released from the purview of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the consequential notification dated 24th April, 2002 issued by the -2- Food Supply and Commerce, Government of Jharkhand, pursuant to the Government of India notification dated 15th February, 2002 releasing articles wheat, rice, cereals, sugar, edible oil etc. from the purview of the Essential Commodities Act in respect of their storage sale, transportation, distribution etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that subsequently the said criminal case instituted against the petitioner was challenged in a criminal miscellaneous petition before this Court being Cr. M. P. No. 61 of 2007, in which this court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 10th December, 2007, quashed the entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 300 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 3825 of 2006 (Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit).
From perusal of the aforesaid order also it appears that this court had quashed the proceedings under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner taking into account that the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened of provision of Essential Commodities Act in respect of the seized article and the notification dated 22nd January, 2007 in respect of the same was also taken into account.
The provision of Section 6 C (2) are Essential Commodities Act are quoted hereinbelow:
"Where an order under Section 6A is modified or annulled by [such judicial authority], or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under Section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized], [such persons shall, except as provided by sub- section (3) of section 6A, be paid] the price therefor [as if the essential commodity,] had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of [the essential commodity] [and such price shall be determined-
(i) in the case of food-grains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 3;
(ii) in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3C) of section 3; and
(iii) in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3.] From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that in a case where the prosecution against a person in respect of contravention of any order in respect of which the order of confiscation has been made or is acquitted then the person is entitled to return of the Essential Commodities seized or to the price thereof in terms of Section 6(C)(2) of the Act.
In the present case, the criminal proceeding in respect of the aforesaid confiscation case has already been quashed as stated hereinabove. Therefore, the confiscation proceeding in respect of the said seized articles, cannot -3- be sustained either moreover, in view of the fact that no violation of any order under the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner.
The aforesaid confiscation proceeding is, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, (Respondent no. 2) who shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, in terms of Section 6(C)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in view of the fact that the criminal proceeding itself has been quashed in respect of the said seizure alleged to have been made in violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. He shall also pass necessary consequential order by either releasing the seized article in favour of the petitioner or the price thereof as calculated in terms of Section 6(C)(2) of the Act with reasonable interest as indicated therein.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) jk/