Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 862 (RAJ)

Ganga Bishan v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned District Collector, Jaisalmer in Case No. 4/2005 and the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Appeal No. 12/2008. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the police officers of the P.S. Ramgarh Dist. Jaisalmer stopped a Tanker No. RJ 19G-6542 on 7.7.2005. It was found that the tanker was being used for illegal transportation of 11500 ltr. of blue kerosene. Sumer Singh the driver of the tanker was not found holding any valid documents for possession of the kerosene. Pursuant to the seizure, an application under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act was filed before the Collector and the Collector directed sale of the kerosene in question and the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- received in pursuance of sale was deposited with the State Government. The petitioner claiming himself to be the licence holder in relation to kerosene in question applied to the learned District Collector under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act claiming the sale proceeds of the kerosene on the ground that the kerosene had been purchased by the petitioner after being duly authorised for the same. Such application came to be rejected and the District Collector directed confiscation of the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the State. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Collector by an appeal filed before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 25.2.2009 rejected the appeal. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the orders of the Civil Supplies Department the petitioner had received the kerosene (after making the due payment) from the Salawas Depot of the I.O.C. On 6.7.2005 vide a bill no. 607968778. He submits that the petitioner had been allotted the kerosene vide an indent and that the driver Sumer Singh misappropriated the kerosene. He submits that the petitioner himself filed an F.I.R. No. 75 dated 7.7.2005 against Sumer Singh in this regard. He further contends that the prayer made by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner in relation to the kerosene recovered in this case has been turned down by the competent court. He submits that the petitioner himself filed an F.I.R. No. 75 dated 7.7.2005 against Sumer Singh in this regard. He further contends that the prayer made by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner in relation to the kerosene recovered in this case has been turned down by the competent court. He thus prays that the learned Collector has committed a grave error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being returned the sale price of the kerosene in question. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. The indent and the invoice dated 6.7.2005 under which the petitioner claims to have received the kerosene mentions that the tanker in which the kerosene was supplied was RJ 19G-6542. The seizure which has been effected by the police officers from the possession of Sumer Singh is of the same tanker and was effected on 7.7.2005 at 4 A.M. The petitioner was proposed to be arrayed as an accused in relation to F.I.R. No. 41/2005 which was registered for seizure of kerosene in question but such prayer of the prosecution was turned down by the competent court vide order dated 22.7.2006. Thus, admittedly the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The petitioner himself filed an F.I.R. against Sumer Singh in relation to the misappropriation of kerosene. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not have been deprived of the seized kerosene or the sale proceeds thereof. Once the proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as mooted by the prosecution had failed, then there could not have been any justification for denying the sale proceeds of the seized article to the petitioner. The prosecution has itself came out with the theory that the petitioner is the owner of kerosene in question and notice under Section 6(A) was also issued to the petitioner in this case. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the orders passed by the courts below are grossly illegal and amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the orders passed by the courts below are grossly illegal and amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the District Collector, Jaisalmer and the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer are quashed. It is hereby directed that the sale proceeds of the kerosene in question which has been seized in this case shall be returned back to the petitioner with an interest @ 6% p.a.The miscellaneous petition is allowed as observed above. Record be sent back.Petition allowed. *******