Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 384 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Radhey Shyam

2005-02-08

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. On 08.09.1972 two Enforcement Officers of Food and Civil Supplies Department inspected the Firms M/s Radhey Shyam Ravi Kumar and M/s Vinod Kumar Pramod Kumar and in the course of inspection, seized 247 and 248 sugar bags from the aforesaid two firms as the same were found stocked in contravention of the Sugar Control Order. After seizure, the bags were produced before the District Collector alongwith an application under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Collector vide its order dated 211.1972 ordered confiscation of the aforesaid seized sugar bags. However, the learned District Judge, Bharatpur vide its order dated 20.12.1972 set aside the order of District Collector, holding that disposal of the seized goods shall be done in terms of the Judgment to be passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal case. On 03.01.1976, Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered sale of seized sugar and deposit the sale price with the Bank in the fixed term account for period of six months. Accordingly, 246 sugar bags were sold for Rs. 1,09,400/-while 248 bags were sold for Rs. 1,05,000/-and this amount of sale price was deposited with the Government treasury. On 09.08.1995 the accused respondents came to be acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and it was ordered that after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for appeal, the amount of sugar be returned. 3. It appears that the aforesaid sum was not returned to the respondents and, therefore, they submitted an application before the District Collector with the request that aforesaid sum alongwith interest be ordered to be returned to them. Since, hearing could not take place on the application of the respondent for considerable period, the respondents preferred a writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 718/1998) before this Court. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 15.09.1998 passed in the above writ petition, the District Collector on 02.06.1999 ordered that the amount received against sale of sugar be returned to the respondents. However, the District Collector declined to award any interest. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, concluded that after their acquittal, the respondents were entitled to received the amount of sale price of seized sugar, alongwith reasonable interest. However, the District Collector declined to award any interest. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, concluded that after their acquittal, the respondents were entitled to received the amount of sale price of seized sugar, alongwith reasonable interest. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge vide its Judgment dated 29.08.2002 awarded interest at the rate of 10% p.a. for the period from 010.1976 to 02.06.1999. Feeling aggrieved by this Judgment , the petitioners, namely, the State of Rajasthan through District Collector and District Supply Officers have preferred this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The petitioner are, inter alia, aggrieved by the impugned order so far it relates to the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the amount of sale proceeds as has been ordered to be paid to the respondents, for the period from 010.1976 to 02.06.1999. It may be noticed that the respondents have also filed a writ petition bearing No. 9000/2002, with the prayer that the interest at the rate of 10% as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to 010.1976. 5. To decide the controversy, it would be profitable to refer the provisions of Section 6-C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, which read as under: "(2) 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, therefore, 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. " 6. A bare reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the respondents, after their acquittal in the prosecution instituted against them for contravention of the order in respect of which the order of confiscation was made under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, Act, are entitled to get reasonable interest on the sale price of sugar. " 6. A bare reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the respondents, after their acquittal in the prosecution instituted against them for contravention of the order in respect of which the order of confiscation was made under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, Act, are entitled to get reasonable interest on the sale price of sugar. On the application having been filed by the respondents, the District Collector vide its order dated 02.06.1999 ordered return of the amount of sale proceed, but refused to award interest, On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge vide its impugned order allowed interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the amount of sale price from 010.1976 i.e., the date on which confiscated sugar was sold till 02.06.1999, the date on which the District Collector declined the interest and ordered return of sale price to the respondents. In my considered view, since the respondents were entitled to receive reasonable interest on the amount of sale of confiscated sugar, under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6-C of the E.C. Act, the learned Sessions Judge has correctly modified the order of the District Magistrate and has rightly ordered payment of interest on the sale price of sugar, restricting the interest only up to 02.06.1999, on which date the District Magistrate ordered payment of sale price lying in the Government Treasury. Both the respondents have collectively filed an under-taking to the effect that they will not press Writ Petition No. 9000/2002, Radhey Shyam vs. Distt. Collector & Ors. pending before this Court and shall withdraw the same. The under taking is ordered to be taken on record and a copy of the same be placed in the above titled writ petition. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.