Shri Narayan Shukla, J. - Heard Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the or­der dated 18.3.2010, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki as also the order dated 21.4.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2010. 3. By means of order dated 18.3.2010, the District Magistrate, Barabanki has forfeited the Vehicle No. UP-41-T/2207 along with foodgrains loaded therein on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant docu­ments to verify the same and almost on the same very ground the order has been upheld in appeal. 4. The charge against the petitioner is that 40 bags of rice were being un­loaded from the Vehicle No. UP-41-T/2207 and huge quantity of other food-grains was stored in the premises of mill, which could not be authenticated by the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid action a First Information Report has also been lodged against the petitioner, pursuant to which a criminal case has been regis­tered against the petitioner, in which he has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki on 20.1.2010. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these foodgrains were beyond the Public Distribution System bags, which are meant for distribu­tion to the people below the poverty line. Accordingly those were free for mar­keting. Though it is not in dispute that the petitioner could not submit the rele­vant documents to verify its stock as the Accountant of his Firm has gone to the District Headquarters alongwith documents for payment of Sales Tax, which could be verified from the Sales Tax receipt of Rs. 1 lakh dated 30.12.2009. Subsequently he produced all the relevant documents for inspection and verifi­cation of foodgrains before the authority concerned and the District Magistrate has already released 270.00 quintals of paddy in favour of the petitioner and 1298.93 quintals of paddy in favour of the District Food and Marketing Officer, which establishes that at least 270 quintals of paddy belongs to the petitioner. Accordingly he submits that the petitioner has been able to verify the docu­ments in support of the quantity of foodgrains which belongs to the petitioner, therefore, there is no reason to forfeit the foodgrains and vehicle in question. 7. Accordingly he submits that the petitioner has been able to verify the docu­ments in support of the quantity of foodgrains which belongs to the petitioner, therefore, there is no reason to forfeit the foodgrains and vehicle in question. 7. On the other hand through the counter affidavit filed by the State, during the inspection made on 30.12.2009 it was found that from the Vehicle No. UP-41-T/2207 out of 40 bags 26 bags of rice were being unloaded and 14 bags were loaded in the said vehicle. The Driver escaped. Whereas in the campus of mill huge quantity of rice and paddy was found stored during the course of in­spection and all the material was seized and confiscated in presence of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner could not verify those quantity of food grains, the inspecting team confiscated 40 bags of rice and paddy in favour of the State Government. 8. It is admitted that 1298.93 quintals of paddy was released in favour of District Food and Marketing Officer and rest of the foodgrains were released in favour of the petitioner-mill. The criminal case registered against the peti­tioner has also been certified through the counter affidavit. It has further been stated that on 30.12.2009 when the petitioner's mill was inspected, the peti­tioner failed to produce any evidence or record pertaining to the stock of foodgrains stored in the campus of mill, whereas it is admitted that the records and registers were produced on 19.2.2010, which speaks the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the date of inspection those were not available with him. The receipt of the tax deposit on the same very date of inspection also speaks the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 9. Keeping in view the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner verified his stock through the relevant docu­ments. I am of the view that only registering a criminal case against the peti­tioner does not create any right to confiscate the goods unless it is proved strictly with the cogent evidence. It has also been submitted through the counter-affidavit that total 270 quintals of paddy was found excess in the petitioner's mill premises. However, the District Magistrate has released the same in favour of the petitioner by the same order by confiscating the balance quantity. It has also been submitted through the counter-affidavit that total 270 quintals of paddy was found excess in the petitioner's mill premises. However, the District Magistrate has released the same in favour of the petitioner by the same order by confiscating the balance quantity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if that very quan­tity of 270 quintals of paddy is calculated within verified stock of the peti­tioner, the petitioner's whole stock keeps as verified and it cannot be said that the paddy was stored in the mill premises without any authority of law. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that once the District Magistrate has acknowledged the food grains available in the petitioner's mill premises and has released the same in favour of the pe­titioner, there is no reason to confiscate the vehicle in question as well as the foodgrains i.e. 40 bags of rice seized by the opposite parties, therefore, I hereby quash the orders impugned dated 18.3.2010, passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki as also the order dated 21.4.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2010 with the direction to the opposite parties to release the said rice and vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 11. In the result the writ petition is allowed.