Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Shyam Lal on 12 September, 2018
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11880/2017
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Food And Civil
Supplies Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The District Supply Officer, Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
Shyam Lal S/o Kewal Chand, By Caste Ghanchi R/o Ward No. 24,
Balotra Distt. Barmer
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.R. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naman Mohnot
Mr. Sangram Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order 12/09/2018 By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State of Rajasthan has approached this court for assailing the order-cum-judgment dated 22.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balotara in Criminal Appeal No.1/2010, whereby the Sessions Court accepted the appeal filed by the respondent Shyam Lal and set aside the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the District Collector, Barmer in proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act directing confiscation of the wheat seized from the premises of the respondent.
The impugned order is challenged principally on the ground that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2 of 2) [CW-11880/2017] However, despite a pertinent query being raised by the court in this behalf, Mr. L.R. Bishnoi, learned DyGC, was unable to apprise the court of any notification issued by the State Government, whereby it can be construed that the appeal under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act has to be registered as a civil appeal and can be entertained only by the District Judge concerned. Furthermore, on a perusal of the order passed by the appellate court, it is apparent that Mr. Shyam Lal, from whom the seizure was effected, was tried for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in relation to the questioned seizure and the competent court has acquitted him. Thus, once the respondent stands acquitted of the charges, the question of confiscation of the seized goods does not survive.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed as such.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J Pramod/104 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)