Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2499 (RAJ)

Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-18

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the revisional Court whereby he has upheld the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by District Collector whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Section 6-A (3) (C) of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Enforcement Officer, Sri Ganganagar, while on patrolling duty, intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13 GA 3719 and on search 1805 liters of diesel was seized from the above vehicle and an F.I.R. No. 210/2009 was registered for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Surendra Kumar and Devilal before the competent Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged Surendra Kumar and Devilal for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The State preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed by the revisional Court. 3. Apart from this, proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act were taken-up before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the District Collector ordered that diesel and vehicle should be confiscated. Being aggrieved of the said order, appeal was filed by the present petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 3.12.2010, allowed the appeal and directed that the vehicle in question and diesel be released in favour of the present petitioner and it has been decided on the State level that no appeal or revision should be filed against the order of the Sessions Judge and hence all the proceedings stood decided in favour of the present petitioner and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 2 to release the vehicle as well as diesel in his favour. But, the petitioner was shocked to receive a notice dated 18.7.2011 whereby the petitioner was called to explain some facts that in criminal proceedings, Surendra Kumar and Devilal were discharged on the ground that they were having diesel as per the notification of the State Government and two persons can carry 2000 litres of diesel without license, whereas in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the diesel has been claimed by the present petitioner and hence these facts should be explained. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5. The main contention of the present petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by notice dated 18.7.2011 are totally unwarranted and without jurisdiction. When the proceedings have been finally decided by the competent Court, then it was not in the jurisdiction of the District Collector to call the present petitioner to explain the facts. It is expected from the public authority to act reasonably and in accordance with law but in the present case, the respondent No. 2 has acted arbitrarily. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to defend the order impugned but it goes in nullity. 7. Looking at the facts of the case that initial order under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act passed by the District Collector has been set aside by the competent Court and at the same time accused persons have also been discharged for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, there was no occasion for the District Collector to initiate the impugned proceeding and this act of the District Collector is totally without jurisdiction, perverse and arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.8.2011 and 18.7.2011 are quashed and set aside and the vehicle in question and diesel be released in favour of the petitioner. 9. During the course of these proceedings, a notice was issued to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar as to why contempt of Court proceedings should not be undertaken against him. In compliance of that notice, Shri Ambrish Kumar, District Collector is present in person in the Court and he had filed a detailed reply of the notice and at the same time he has submitted an unconditional apology and has also stated that in compliance of the order of the Sessions Judge, the District Collector has already passed necessary orders and hence notice of contempt of Court be quashed. 10. Looking at the fact that the District Collector has already issued necessary orders, notice of contempt of Court is discharged. 11. 10. Looking at the fact that the District Collector has already issued necessary orders, notice of contempt of Court is discharged. 11. During the course of arguments, it has been stated by the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Ambrish Kumar that the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 and proceedings have been initiated by the then Collector, Smt. Mugdha Sinha.Hence, notice be issued to Smt. Mugdha Sinha as to why contempt of Court proceedings should not be undertaken against her. Rule is made returnable on 19.12.2011.Petition Allowed. *******