Jharkhand High Court
Asha Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5793 of 2014
---
1.Asha Jha, w/o Sri Arun Kumar Jha, resident of Goswami Tola, Balidih, P.O. and P.S.-Balidih, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
2.Sikandar Kumar Yadav, son of Mohit Roy, resident of Qr. No.2199 Stree, Sector IV-E, P.O. and P.S. Sector IV, B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand .... ... Petitioners
--Versus--
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate Bokaro, PO and PS Sector-1, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
3.Block Supply Officer, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand ..... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madhav Prasad, AC to GA-IV 3/ Dated : 27th January, 2020 Heard Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Madhav Prasad, AC to GA-IV appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in Confiscation Case No.01/2014. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent no.2 has confiscated a Truck bearing No.JH-09A-8892 of the petitioner no.1 and Motorcycle No.JH-09N-0676 of the petitioner no.2 under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act and also confiscated Koresene Oil of about 4400 liters seized from the place of the occurrence in connection with Marafari Case No.68/2013(G.R.Case No.2069 of 2013). He further submitted that on the basis of a written report of Shyam Lal Roy, Block Supply Officer, Chas, the aforesaid case was instituted against three unknown 2 persons under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and cognizance was taken against the petitioners and Kerosene oil of 4400 liters and the Truck and Motorcycle bearing numbers stated above have been confiscated by order dated 07.07.2014. He further submits that there is no allegation regarding seized Motorcycle. He further submits that during pendency of this writ petition the petitioners have been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case. He further submits that in view of the acquittal now the confiscated Truck and Motorcycle are need to be released in favour of the petitioners. He relied in the case of "Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors."-2013 (1) JCR 190 (Jhr.).
"8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the quashing of entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners in relation to the same allegation of violation of the provisions of E.C. Act and the control orders, the orders passed in the confiscation proceeding also has to go and the petitioners are entitled to the return of the essential commodities seized for the price therein, as per the provisions of Section 6-C(2) of the E.C. Act., which is quote hereinbelow :
"Where an order under Section 6-A 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 6-A, 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 6-A, 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 foodgrains, edible oil seeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of Section 3;3
ii. In the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-C) 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.]}"
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Bimal Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2003 (2) JCR 689 (Jhr) had quashed the order of confiscating authority and directed the competent authority to act in terms of Section 6-C. On perusal of aforesaid judgment in the said case, it appears that simultaneous proceeding for confiscation under Section 6-C of the E.C. Act and criminal prosecution by the institution of the FIR for the same incidents, were initiated against the said petitioner. The criminal prosecution was quashed by a judgment of this Court passed by learned single Judge against the said petitioner, which was also brought on record in the said writ petition by the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. In those circumstances, it was held as under:
"Section 6(c)(ii) provides, inter alia, that where an order or confiscation is either modified or annulled by the judicial authority or when the prosecution instituted ends in acquittal and in either case, if it is not possible to return the commodities seized, then such person as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6-A shall be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodities had been sold to the Government together with the reasonable interest calculated from the day of seizure.
Consequently, the order dated 26.10.1999 is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to act in terms of Section 6(c)(ii) and if any bond etc. had been executed, then the same should be discharged."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the criminal prosecution has been terminated in acquittal of the petitioners. The provision of law made hereinabove as also the judgment 4 relied upon by the petitioners support the contention of the petitioners that in such circumstances the order passed in confiscation proceeding is fit to be quashed.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case disclosed hereinabove, the order dated 07.07.2014 in Confiscation Case No.01/2014 is quashed and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro is directed to act in terms of section 6(C) of the Act and if any bond has been executed on behalf of the petitioners, the same should be discharged.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5793 of 2014 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,