SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Pat) 289

PATNA HIGH COURT
B.P.Singh, J.
Rohan Lal Arjun Lal
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 86 of 1992 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 1992

A criminal prosecution and confiscation proceeding initiated on the basis of an illegal search and seizure are illegal.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 30 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CONFISCATION PROCEEDING BASED ON SUCH SEARCH AND SEIZURE ARE ILLEGAL.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Delhi-based firm, sent a consignment of wheat to a consignee in Bihar. The consignee failed to pay for the consignment and take delivery of the goods. The petitioner then arranged for the sale of the consignment to another trader, M/s. Sultania Enterprises, after informing the District Supply Officer. However, the D.S.P. (Food), who was not authorized to search or seize stocks of foodgrains, seized the entire consignment of wheat from the railway godown. Subsequently, a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner alleging that it had committed an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the search and seizure of the wheat consignment by the D.S.P. (Food) was illegal since he was not authorized to do so. Consequently, the criminal prosecution and confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner based on such illegal search and seizure were also illegal.

Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure of the wheat consignment by the D.S.P. (Food) was legal. 2. Whether the criminal prosecution and confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner based on such illegal search and seizure were legal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, only officers specifically authorized by the State Government have the power to enter, search, and seize stocks of foodgrains. The D.S.P. (Food) was not one of the authorized officers. 2. A valid seizure is a sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to a Collector to start a proceeding for confiscation of essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act. Since the search and seizure in the present case was illegal, the criminal prosecution and confiscation proceeding based on such search and seizure were also illegal.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal proceeding and confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

Judgment

B.P.Singh, J.

1. In this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in Barauni Rail P.S. Case No. 140/90 (G.R. No. 2825/90). The ground on which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding is that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is illegal, and for the same reason the confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s. 6A of the Act in Cr. Misc. Case No. 29/90 pending before the Collector, Begusarai is also illegal. It is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct release of the sum of Rs. 1,60,560 which represents the sale proceeds of the foodgrains in question, namely wheat, which has been deposited in the Government Treasury.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on business as general merchant and common &gent. Its normal place of business is Delhi and it holds a valid licence for carrying on business in wheat under the provisions of the Delhi Wheat (Licensing and Control) Order, 1988, and a copy of the licence issued in its name has been annexed as Annexure-1. In the district of Begusarai at Teghra there is a. firm known as M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill. In the month of October, 1990 the aforesaid M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill had placed an order on the petitioner-firm for supply of wheat. Accordingly, the petitioner- firm sent consignment of 550 bags of wheat under cover of three bills Nos. 895, 896 and 889, dated 26.10.1990, 16.10.1990 and 27.10.1990 respectively for a total of 550 bags. The consignment was dispatched in railway wagons from Delhi, and its destination was Barauni Junction. The railway receipt was issued in favour of self so as to secure payment before the goods were delivered to the consignee. The consignee M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not pay for the consignment and take deli very of the goods with the result that the railway receipt was returned to the petitioner-firm. Despite persuasion M/s. Bajrang Roller Mill did not honour their commitment. Since the goods were lying in the railway go down and were incurring liability the petitioner firm sent its Manager to arrange for the sale of consignment to any other trader. Ultimately, M/s. Sultania Enterprises agreed to purchase the wheat on consignment basis, and wrote a letter agreeing to accept the goods on consignment basis. The Manager of the petitioner-firm, accordingly, informed the District Supply Officer, Begusarai, by his letter dated 30th November, 1990. It appears that the District Supply Officer also directed M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill to deposit the price of Wheat, and accept the goods, failing which it was directed that the wheat may be delivered to M/s. Sultania Enterprises. A copy of the letter of the District Supply Officer is annexed as Annexure 3-A. Despite this letter of the District Supply Officer M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not deposit the amount nor did they take any interest in taking the delivery of the goods, but it appear that they had other intentions. According to the petitioners, on an application being made by the Director or M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, the D.S.P. (Food), Darbhanga Camp, Barauni Junction, intervened, and on 3.12.1990 at about 3 P.M. seized the entire sack of wheat from the railway godown. Subsequently, on 4.12.1990 he lodged a First Information Report alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner firm had sent from Delhi 550 bags of wheat under the cover of three bills in the name of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, but with a view of so the same in black market had negotiated for sale thereof with M/s. Sultania Enterprises. Since the petitioner had no licence in Bihar for storage or sale of wheat, and the storage was more than 500 quintals, i.e., above the storage limit, the petitioner and others have committed an offence u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top