Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 189 (CAL)

G. L. GAYEN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2002-03-18

P.K.BISWAS

body2002
P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the opposite party is also present. Heard both of them at length. ( 2 ) THIS is an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Mr. G. L. Gayen, E. C. Collector, Hooghly Sadar, Chinsura, District Hooghly, petitioner herein seeking to set aside the order dated 8. 01. 96 passed by Mr. Milon Chatterjee, learned Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Hooghly in connection with Polba P. S. Case No. 95 and special case No. 30/95 under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ( 3 ) THE short fact leading to this revisional application is as under: the petitioner has been working as Collector under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 having his office at Hooghly Sadar at Chinsura within the District Hooghly. ( 4 ) ON the basis of a prayer for confiscation of seized coal from the possession of one Ramjanam Singh in connection with Memo. No. 282/deb, Hooghly dated 29. 8. 95, the petitioner took up the matter for initiating proceeding for confiscation of the seized articles and passing an interim order in order to dispose of the seized articles. ( 5 ) THE present petitioner on perusal of the documents and papers submitted by DEB Authority directed the opposite party Ramjanam Singh to take the seized coal in zimma on consideration that the sample of the seized coal be retained by the Investigating Officer for verification of the same. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the opposite party Ramjanam Singh surrendered before the learned Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Hooghly on 8. 01. 96 and submitted an application for bail with a copy of order dated 29. 9. 95 passed by the present petitioner in connection with the aforesaid E. C. case No. 8/95 in the confiscation proceeding. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act by his order dated 8. 1. 01. 96 and submitted an application for bail with a copy of order dated 29. 9. 95 passed by the present petitioner in connection with the aforesaid E. C. case No. 8/95 in the confiscation proceeding. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act by his order dated 8. 1. 96, allowed the bail but directed the petitioner to submit an explanation before the learned Judge as to why cognizance for committing offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be taken against the petitioner and as to why process should not be issued against the petitioner for causing his trial and as to why the special case No. 30/95 should not be dropped against other accused persons holding inter alia in the said order that by way of giving the seized coal in the custody of the accused persons, without retaining any sample, the Essecntial Commodities Collector has committed an offence punishable under section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 as his aforesaid order will help disappearance of the evidence, in connection with the aforesaid case. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved by an dissatisfied with the order, the present revisional application has been directed alleging inter alia that the learned Judge, special Court of the Essential Commodities Act has totally exceeded his jurisdiction in passing such impugned order as the Collector under Essential Commodities Act was and is empowered under section 6a (1) of the Essential Commodities Act to dispose of the seized article either by confiscating or not by confiscating or by passing any interim order under section 6a (2) of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 9 ) HENCE, this petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. ( 10 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. ( 11 ) SECTION 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 55) expressly provides that the Collector may make order of confiscation of the essential commodities seized in pursuance of the order made under section 3, whether or not prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order. ( 11 ) SECTION 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 55) expressly provides that the Collector may make order of confiscation of the essential commodities seized in pursuance of the order made under section 3, whether or not prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order. ( 12 ) UPON the framing of the aforesaid Act, 1955, it is clear that the aforesaid Act, 55 envisages two independent proceedings against a person charged with contravention or violation of an order made under section 3 in relation to an essential commodity and it is also quite clear that the confiscation proceeding and the criminal prosecution are quite independent and separate proceedings. ( 13 ) IN that view of the fact under section 6a the Collector retains paramount jurisdiction with regard to passing of any order whatsoever may be deemed fit and proper by him upon perusal of the papers and documents in the concerned case and the provisions have been made in section 6 (C) of the Act itself to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority as envisaged in the aforesaid section if anybody feels aggrieved with such order. However, no jurisdiction is retained by the trial Judge under section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and similarly the trial Judge has retained the paramount jurisdiction for prosecution of the person for violation of the provisions of the Act itself. ( 14 ) WITHIN the aforesaid framework of the Act itself the aforesaid two functionaries have had to function within their respective jurisdiction and certainly there is nothing in the Act itself to allow the other authority to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the other. ( 15 ) HERE, upon perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned trial Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by asking for an explanation from the Collector under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in connection with the confiscation order passed by him which is plainly not permissible within the framework of the Act itself. ( 16 ) THIS matter may be viewed from a different angle and also in the light of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which restricts the prosecution of the Judges and public servants. ( 16 ) THIS matter may be viewed from a different angle and also in the light of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which restricts the prosecution of the Judges and public servants. The object of this section is to protect Judges and other public servants against irresponsible, frivolous or vexatious proceedings for acts done in discharge of official duty and to see that no prosecution is started unless there is some foundation for the charges brought. ( 17 ) HERE in this case, I find from the perusal of the materials that the E. C. Collector has passed the aforesaid order in discharge of his official duties and unless patently there is some foundation to proceed against him, no prosecution can be launched against him and so viewing the matter in the above light also I find that asking for an explanation by the trial Judge from the E. C. Collector for the act, done by him in discharge of his official duties is not at all permissible. ( 18 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I hold that the impugned order so far as it relates to calling for an explanation from the E. C. Collector cannot at all stand and the same is, therefore quashed. ( 19 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this revisional application stands disposed of. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned authorities for information and necessary compliance. Application disposed of