Pradyot Kr. Das Mondal vs The State on 30 July, 1985
On the basis of these two decisions of this Court reported in 87 Cal WN 221 : 1983 Cri LJ 491 and (1983) 87 Cal WN 534, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has asked me to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr. P.C. for disposing of the case on the grounds (a) that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner, (b) that no notice under Section 6B of the Act was served on the petitioner in spite of the observation of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandeshwar Mahato v. State of Bihar 1978 Cri LJ 672 about desirability of sending such a notice to a person who happens to be the real owner of the goods, though not mentioned as an accused in the FIR and (c) that the order of the Collector, though a quasi-judicial order was not supported by reason. It is difficult, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on a consideration of the averments in the FIR, to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or to invoke inherent power because of the specific bar created by Section 6E of the Act. In none of the decisions of this Court in the cases reported in 87 Cal WN 221 : 1983 Cri LJ 491 and (1983) 87 Cal WN 534 the provisions of Section 6E of the Act were considered. The expression "any other court" in Section 6E of the Act includes, in my humble opinion, the High Court also. In these circumstances, when a specific bar of jurisdiction has been created by the Act itself, Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked for setting aside or quashing the confiscation case or for directing the release of the seized paddy to the petitioner at this stage. In the circumstances, I refrain from discussing the merits of the petitioner's case.