Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1669 (JHR)

Anup Kumar Saria v. The State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-31

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent no. 2) in Confiscation Case no. 06 of 2015, whereby the said authority has ordered to confiscate the petitioner''s tanker bearing registration no. JH-17D-8720 in view of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short to be referred as "the Act, 1955"). The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order/judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Confiscation Appeal no. 01 of 2017 whereby the learned court has upheld the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 in the aforesaid confiscation case. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the said tanker in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner''s tanker bearing registration no. JH-17D-8720 was intercepted by the police and was brought to Chirkunda (Maithan) police station. On inspection, 20,000 litres of blue kerosene oil was found in the said tanker. No document with regard to purchase of the said kerosene oil was produced by the driver and the helper of the said tanker. The case of the prosecution was that blue kerosene oil was not permitted for free sale in the market and hence, the storage and transportation of the said 20,000 litres of blue kerosene oil meant for public distribution could be done only by the licence holder. The tanker along with kerosene oil was seized and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad for initiation of a proceeding under Section 6A of the Act, 1955. An F.I.R. being Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case no. 252 of 2015 was also lodged under Section 7 of the Act, 1955 against the petitioner as well as Gunjan Singh and Suraj Rawani (driver and helper of the seized vehicle respectively). Thereafter, the Confiscation Case no. 06 of 2015 was registered and the same was finally disposed of by the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passing an order for confiscation of the tanker in question. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.12.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Confiscation Appeal no. Thereafter, the Confiscation Case no. 06 of 2015 was registered and the same was finally disposed of by the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passing an order for confiscation of the tanker in question. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.12.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Confiscation Appeal no. 01 of 2017, which was also dismissed vide order/judgment dated 29.03.2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad affirming the order of confiscation passed by the respondent no. 2. 4. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to dismissal of the Confiscation Appeal no. 01 of 2017 vide order/judgment dated 29.03.2017, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed in Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case no. 252 of 2015 took note of the fact that the petitioner (Anup Saria) has not been sent up for trial by the Investigating Officer and thus the case against him has been ordered to be dropped. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been sent up for trial, the confiscated tanker may be ordered to be released as no evidence has been found against the petitioner being involved in the alleged offence and thus no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said tanker of the petitioner confiscated. 5. Learned S.C. (L&C) representing the State-respondents, submits that even if subsequently the petitioner has not been found involved in the alleged offence and has not been sent up for trial, the orders passed by the confiscated authority as well as the appellate authority would not be rendered unlawful. The said orders have been passed after due appreciation of the facts and therefore, the same do not require any interference by this Court. 6. Be that as it may. The limited submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that irrespective of the orders passed by the confiscated authority as well as the appellate authority, since the petitioner has not been sent up for trial in the criminal case, who undisputedly is the owner of the tanker in question, the confiscating authority is, at least, required to consider the said aspect in the ends of justice. 7. On perusal of the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case no. 7. On perusal of the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case no. 252 of 2015, it appears that the criminal case as against the petitioner has been ordered to be dropped. The orders passed by the confiscating authority as well as the appellate authority are prior to the aforesaid order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in the criminal case. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the tanker in question against whom the case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been dropped. 8. Thus, considering the changed circumstance, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the confiscating authority (respondent no.2) to hear the matter afresh and decide the same expeditiously after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the point of release of the tanker in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and the criminal case against him has been ordered to be dropped by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. It is also made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall not be prejudiced/influenced by his earlier order dated 16.12.2016 passed in Confiscation Case no. 06 of 2015 and the order/judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Confiscation Appeal no. 01 of 2017. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 10. I.A. No. 1697 of 2018 also stands disposed of.