Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1140 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Guman Singh

2017-10-12

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Rath, J. 1. This is a defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1996 and 19.6.1996 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in S.J Money Appeal No.6 of 1995-III partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1995 and 27.1.1995 respectively passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in M.S No.14/109 of 1991-III of 1987. 2. Case of the plaintiff is that he was the authorised agent and partner of Shri S.S Das. He had the licence for purchasing, storing and selling of rice and paddy under clause 4(2) of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. On 29.7.1982, he transported 100 quintal of rice in 100 bags to Baripada in his truck. The Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, Balasore seized the truck at Nilgiri. An FIR was lodged. The document was seized by the police. He approached the authority for release of the truck along with rice. But then, the A.D.M., Balasore passed the order to sell the rice. Thereafter, the rice was sold for a sum of Rs.19,359.50 ps. The sale proceeds were deposited in the treasury. Charge sheet was submitted against him. He was discharged on the ground that he had the valid licence for transportation of rice. The sale proceeds were refunded to him. Due to illegal seizure of rice and truck, he instituted the suit claiming compensation of Rs.96,000/- for mental agony and financial loss. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a licencee and dealer under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order. Due to non-production of valid documents, the seizure was made. The proceeding under Sec.6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act (“E.C Act”) was started for disposal of rice. The A.D.M passed the order for sale of rice and deposited sale proceeds in the treasury. It was further pleaded that show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff. But then, he did not reply. After discharge, the money was refunded to him. The public officers were protected under Sec.15 of the E.C Act. The plaintiff not being the owner of the rice, he was not entitled to the compensation. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary, to substantiate their case. The public officers were protected under Sec.15 of the E.C Act. The plaintiff not being the owner of the rice, he was not entitled to the compensation. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary, to substantiate their case. The learned trial court decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree, defendants filed S.J Money Appeal No.6 of 1995-III before the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore. Learned lower appellate court modified the decree and held that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.9760.50 ps. along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of decree and 4% per annum from the date of decree till payment. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law; “1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 2. Whether the concerned officer who sold goods is protected under Section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act ? 6. Heard Ms. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr.T.K Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Ms. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that after seizure of goods, prosecution was launched against the plaintiff. He was acquitted by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri on 9.12.1983. The suit was filed on 23.12.1987 and as such, the same was barred by limitation. 8. Per contra Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff was a dealer of rice and paddy. He had a valid licence. The goods were illegally seized by the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, Balasore. The seized rice was purchased for a sum of Rs.29,120.00/-. But then, the same was illegally put to auction at a price of Rs.19,359.50/- ps. Since goods were illegally put to auction, the plaintiff instituted the suit for damages. An amount of Rs.19,359.50/- ps. had been paid to the plaintiff on 25.1.1986. Thus the suit is within the period of limitation. 9. Article 74 of the Limitation Act is the hub of the issue. The same is quoted below; 74. For compensation for a malicious prosecution. One year When the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. 10. had been paid to the plaintiff on 25.1.1986. Thus the suit is within the period of limitation. 9. Article 74 of the Limitation Act is the hub of the issue. The same is quoted below; 74. For compensation for a malicious prosecution. One year When the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. 10. On a bare perusal of Article 74 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that the period of limitation is one year for compensation for a malicious prosecution. Admittedly the plaintiff was acquitted from the criminal case on 9.12.1983. The said order was not challenged by the State. Thus the limitation for a suit for malicious prosecution began to run from that date. The suit was filed on 23.12.1987. Thus the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 11. A priori, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.