Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3910 (ALL)

IMAM BAKSH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-12-05

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been perused. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 24th May, 2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun directing for confiscation of the rice and the vehicle carrying the same as also the order dated 16.9.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/FTC 1st dismissing the appeal against the confiscation. 4. On the basis of the information of the police the vehicle UP-92 T-0130 and the 18 bags of rice loaded on it were seized and on reference to the Collector the aforesaid order of confiscation was passed on the ground that the rice loaded on the vehicle was meant for distribution through fair price shop. 5. The petitioner is the owner of vehicle. He is aggrieved by the confiscation of his vehicle. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no material before the authority to identify that the aforesaid rice was meant for distribution through public distribution system so as to confiscate it and the vehicle. The petitioner has nothing to do with the said rice. He had loaded the said rice on the request of three persons, namely, Mohd. Shakeel, Ismail and Harvansh Lal as they claimed to have purchased it from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Dibiyapur vide receipts dated 14.9.2013. The receipts submitted by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice were discarded holding that it nowhere specified as to the contents of the bags. 7. The record reveals that the petitioner had produced three receipts dated 14.9.2013 of serial Nos. 023010 to 023012 to establish the purchase of 18 bags of commodities by the aforesaid three persons. The said receipts are not held to be fake documents and no effort was made to verify their correctness from the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. 8. It is practical knowledge that in the sale and purchase of such commodities the receipts are issued simply mentioning the quantity or the number of bags and the total amount payable and these entries on receipt are written in a hurried manner rather than mentioning each and every minute detail of the commodity, quality and the quantity or even the name of the purchaser and his details. 9. 9. The petitioner was simply carrying the aforesaid bags of rice on his vehicle allegedly at the request of the aforesaid three persons and there was no mark of any identification on the bags that the commodity is of the Government or Food Corporation of India or is meant for distribution through public distribution system. 10. The rice is available in the open market as also through the public distribution system and no distinction between the rice available in open market and that which is meant for sale through public distribution system can be made by naked eyes unless packed in distinct bags. Since the rice confiscated was not packed in any such distinct bag which may make it identifiable or connect it with the public distribution system there was hardly any material before the Collector to hold that the same was meant for distribution through the fair price shops. Thus, the confiscation of the rise and in turn the vehicle is bad in law. 11. In view of the above, the confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act as a whole is illegal. 12. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.5.2016 passed by the District Magistrate and dated 16.9.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/FTC 1st are set aside and the respondents are directed not only to release the vehicle of the petitioner but also the rice, if not already sold, but without affecting the prosecution.