JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The judgment dated 10.08.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Money Suit No. 19/1998 stands impugned in the present appeal. By that judgment, the learned Trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for an amount of Rs. 7,38,338/- being the sale proceeds of the seized rice from his possession along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Biswas with Mr. S. Lodh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. The short fact given rise to the present proceeding may be noticed at the outset. The appellant Subhash Chandra Dey is the Proprietor of M/S Joy Ram Hardwares and Shibu Trading in Dharmanagar town, North Tripura District. On 21.03.1992, a Food Inspector of the State Government inspected his shop and seized 155215 Kg. of rice on the allegation that the same were ration rice meant for Public Distribution System. He also seized furniture, fan and TV from the shop, though the same were released later. The Dharmanagar P.S. Case No. 12(3)/92 under Section 7(i)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'E.C. Act') was registered against the appellant herein, his father Sunil Chandra Dey and his driver Nityananda Das. The seized rice was placed at the disposal of the District Magistrate & Collector of dispose of the same for Rs. 7,38,338/- The sale proceeds were deposited in the Treasury. Upon completion of the investigation, the matter was submitted to the learned Special Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, where the Special Case No. 2/92 was registered. The question that fell for consideration before the learned Special Judge was whether the seized rice was found in exclusive possession of the accused persons. The appellant herein, did not take any stand that the rice was seized from his exclusive possession. The learned Special Judge, after careful appreciation of the prosecution evidence, observed that exclusive possession of the seized rice by the accused persons could not be proved and, therefore, depending upon the deposition of P.W. 9, who is a technical expert that the sample of rice taken by him from the Chandpur godown were different from the seized rice, acquitted the accused persons. After acquittal from the Court of learned Special Judge, the appellant herein advanced a claim to the learned Collector for disposal of the sale proceeds of seized rice. The learned Collector disposed of that claim by order dated 24.01.1998 after giving notice to the appellant herein. While disposing of the claim, the learned Collector placed reliance on the observation of the learned Special Judge. The relevant part of the said order of the learned Collector is quoted below: The judgment of the Ld. Court is carefully gone through and from the observation/findings of the judgment it is clearly evident that the concerned accused persons are acquired on the ground of wanting of evidences in respect of seizure of rice from the exclusive possession of Shri Dey and further more there is lacking of evidences as to the identity of the seized rice, whether ration or otherwise. To substantiate its exclusive ownership and possession, Shri Dey did not divulge any fact either in the form of suggestion or even by defence plea. Moreover, during the course of trial Shri Dey did not show any books of accounts or records containing the rice to be his own as alleged dealer, nor he produced any dealership licence issued by any authority in respect of that seized rice during investigation or even in the earlier stage of interim disposal of the seized rice. 4. Aggrieved by the order of learned Collector, the appellant instituted Money Suit claiming a decree for the said amount of Rs. 7,38,338/-, which came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned. While dismissing the suit, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura, observed that the order of the learned Collector rejecting the claim of the appellant herein, was not put under challenge in appeal or revision though the E.C. Act has specific provision for the same. That apart, no attempt was ever made by the appellant to prove his exclusive possession of the seized rice even before the learned Collector. The judgment of the learned Special Judge having made a clear finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized rice were found in exclusive possession of the appellant herein, it was incumbent upon him to prove by adducing admissible and cogent evidence that he was the owner of the seized rice. The judgment of the learned Special Judge having made a clear finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized rice were found in exclusive possession of the appellant herein, it was incumbent upon him to prove by adducing admissible and cogent evidence that he was the owner of the seized rice. He did not make any claim of ownership of rice before the learned Special Judge presumably for the reason that such a claim could have landed him in trouble leading to his conviction. But when P.W. 9 as technician, clearly deposed that the sample collected from the godown wherefrom the same rice were allegedly misappropriated were not similar to the seized rice, it is not clear why the appellant, if he was really the owner of the seized rice, failed to take a definite stand claiming the rice either in the proceeding before the learned Special Judge or in the subsequent proceeding before the learned Collector. Because of the finding of the learned Special Judge on the basis of which the learned Collector rejected the claim of the appellant herein, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, found no reason to pass a decree for the amount of sale proceeds, as such a decree would have run counter to the finding of the learned Special Judge which received finality as no appeal therefrom was preferred. 5. After taking into consideration the issues involved and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be evident that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for utter failure of the appellant to take a definite stand about his ownership of the seized rice in any of the forums. The findings of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit being thus on terrafirma, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the same. 6. For the discussions and reasons aforementioned, this appeal has no merit and consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.