Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 757 (JHR)

Gopal Keshri v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard Shri Nilesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to S.C. II, for the Respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Confiscation Proceedings as also the order dated 26.11.2007, passed in the Confiscation Case No. 34 of 2006, by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, by which the rice of the petitioner measuring 174 quintals which was seized from the petitioner’s possession, has been confiscated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the seizure of the rice and the initiation of the confiscation proceedings, submits that the entire act of the Respondents, is highly illegal and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel explains further that on the date when the rice was seized, there was no restriction by way of any control order in respect of stock limit, distribution or transportation of rice etc. Yet, on the plea of suspicion that since the rice was found to have been packed in gunny bags bearing the F.C.I. seal and the same belongs to the F.C.I., the papers regarding the procurement for the rice was demanded, and though the petitioner had produced the same but despite such production, the entire quantity of 174 quintals of rice was seized and the confiscation proceedings has been initiated on the allegation of violation of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and a criminal prosecution was also lodged against the petitioner for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Section 409 of the I.P.C. Though the petitioner was released on bail in that case, but his trial is still pending. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The stand taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit is that since the rice bags found in possession of the petitioner, bore the seal of the F.C.I., there was a reasonable suspicion that the rice was illegally procured from the F.C.I. and therefore the bags of rice were seized and a F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and the confiscation proceeding was also initiated. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State concedes that on the date of seizure of the 174 quintals of rice, there was no restriction by way of any control order in respect of the stock limits, distribution or transportation of rice etc. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State concedes that on the date of seizure of the 174 quintals of rice, there was no restriction by way of any control order in respect of the stock limits, distribution or transportation of rice etc. However, considering the fact that the rice was found packed in gunny bags bearing the seal and tag of the F.C.I. and also the fact that the petitioner could not be able to explain as to how he had procured the same, there was reasonable suspicion that the same was illegally procured from the F.C.I. 6. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner initiating the confiscation proceedings, it appears that reference has been made therein to the documents produced by the petitioner explaining the source from where the rice was procured by him but the same was not taken into consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure of the rice bags was made on the plea that the petitioner being a food grains dealer he did not possess a foodgrain dealers license, although in absence of any restriction in respect of stock limits, distribution and transportation etc. of the rice on the date when the seizure of the rice bags was made by the Respondents, there was no mandate requiring the petitioner to obtain a food grain dealer’s license. 8. As it appears, the seizure of the rice bags was made only on suspicion on account of the fact that the rice was packed in gunny bags, bearing the seal and tag of the F.C.I. 9. A similar issue came up for consideration before this court in the case of Bholi Kumar Bhojgariya-versus-The State of Jharkhand & Others, passed in W.P. (C) No. 2567 of 2007 and also before the Division Bench of this court in the case of Dilip Kumar-versus-State of Jharkhand & Others vide L.P.A. No. 179 of 2006. A similar issue came up for consideration before this court in the case of Bholi Kumar Bhojgariya-versus-The State of Jharkhand & Others, passed in W.P. (C) No. 2567 of 2007 and also before the Division Bench of this court in the case of Dilip Kumar-versus-State of Jharkhand & Others vide L.P.A. No. 179 of 2006. It was observed in the case of Bholi Kumar Bhojgaria, (Supra) in the following terms: - “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has any substance only because the food grains were kept and stored in the bags, containing the seal of F.C.I., without any other material on record, it cannot be presumed that the said article belong to the FCI. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the used FCI bags are available in the market and that can be easily purchased, has not been denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that view, I do not find any legal ground on which the confiscation proceeding can be allowed to proceed and the impugned seizure can be supported under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act” The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the aforesaid case. 10. In the light of the above discussions, the seizure of the rice and the initiation of the confiscation proceedings vide the impugned order and the final order dated 26.11.2007 for confiscation of the seized bags of rice, are illegal and unsustainable. For the above reasons, this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. 11. It is informed that pursuant to the order of confiscation the rice bags were sold and the sale proceeds has been deposited in the Government Treasury. If that be so, the Respondents are directed to deliver the sale proceeds of the seized rice to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order together with statutory interest.