Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 601 (ALL)

Rajendra Kumar Anil Kumar v. State of U. P

1986-08-22

U.CHANDRA

body1986
JUDGMENT U. Chandra, J. - By this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure M/s Rajendra Kumar Anil Kumar, M/s. Mata Prasad and Babulal, M/s Shyam Sunder Bagesh Kumar and M/s Chandrabhan Laxmi Narain, all grain merchants and commission agents of Jeewaganj, District Morena (M.P.) have prayed that the order of confiscation, dated 14.8.1984, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (city) Agra, be quashed and the mustard oil seeds so confiscated be released in favour of the petitioners. 2. As stated in the petition, petitioner No.1 sent 165 bags of mustard seeds through New Sangam Road Transport service in truck No. 4106 CPG to Calcutta, West Bengal to be received to Tripati Bala Ji Oil Mill Raniganj (vide Annexure 1 to the petition). Similarly petitioner No. 2 sent 161 bags of mustard Oil seeds to Calcutta, West Bengal, through Ashoka Road Lines Service in truck No. 4216 CPG to be received to M/s. Bala Ji Trading Company (vide annexure 2 to the petition) for sale. Petitioner No. 3 booked 153 bags of mustard oil for being transported in truck No. 1937 CPG to Calcutta West Bengal (vide Annexure 3 to the petition). Petitioner No. 4 booked 161 bags of mustard oil seeds to be sent in truck no. 3665 CPG to M/s. Prem Narain Swarup, commission agent of Calcutta. All these four trucks reached Agra. They had valid transit documents. These documents were checked at two barriers by the sales tax authorities. All these trucks had received transit permits in form No. 34 for changing the truck outside Agra for Calcutta and to pass the U.P. barriers within eight days. The copies in form No. 34 are annexed to this petition as annexures A-32 5,6, 7 and 8. All these 640 bags were seized by Marketing Inspector V.K. Agarwal on 7.6.1981 at 10 a.m. at Maruti Auto Centre where the trucks had come for transhipment. A report under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was lodged at police station Etmaddaula, District Agra, alleging that the petitioners had violated the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seeds Products (Control) Order, 1966. The trucks and the bags were seized by the impugned order. It appears that a first information report was lodged against Vijay Prakash Gupta, owner of Maruti Auto Centre. He was granted bail under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trucks and the bags were seized by the impugned order. It appears that a first information report was lodged against Vijay Prakash Gupta, owner of Maruti Auto Centre. He was granted bail under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. As the goods belonged to the petitioners, they filed four separate revisions in the High Court which was numbered as1739, 1740, 1741 and 1742 of 1984. These revisions were admitted on 21.8.85 and a stay order preventing the opposite party from auctioning the seized property was passed. However, when these revisions came up for hearing, it was held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alone was maintainable and as such this petition has been filed against the order of confiscation with a prayer that the mustard oil seeds be released in the petitioners favour. 3. Notice was served on the learned counsel for the State but no counter affidavit has been filed. Consequently the allegations made in the petition have to be believed. The Oil Seed Products and Oil Seeds (Control') Order, 1966, of which violation is alleged, does not prohibit the petitioners from transporting mustard oil seeds from U.P. to Calcutta. No such provision has been brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the State who has been heard in the matter. In fact this allegation which was the basis for confiscating the mustard oil seeds by the impugned order was considered in criminal miscellaneous case no. 1156 of 1985, M/s. Bhurey Lal Mahesh Chandra and another v. State, and it was held: "The applicants or the drivers of the trucks may be guilty of violating some provisions of the Sales Tax Act or Motor Vehicles Act or some other Act or Rules, but there is nothing to show that any provision of the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seeds products Control Order, 1966, had been contravened". 4. It may be mentioned that in that petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. also the State Government had filed no counter affidavit. Consequently by judgment, dated 3rd Jan. 1986, the petition was allowed, the confiscation order was quashed and investigation in the matter was dropped. In the present case the petitioners have alleged that a final report has been submitted in the case and, therefore, the prayer for quashing the first information report was deleted. This has also not been denied by the State. 1986, the petition was allowed, the confiscation order was quashed and investigation in the matter was dropped. In the present case the petitioners have alleged that a final report has been submitted in the case and, therefore, the prayer for quashing the first information report was deleted. This has also not been denied by the State. It follows therefore, that the Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra had no jurisdiction to confiscate the mustard oil seeds which were being transported from U.P. to Calcutta under valid documents. 5. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order of confiscation, dated 14.8.1984, passed by A.D.M. (City) Agra, is quashed and the mustard oil seeds so confiscated are released in favour of the petitioners.