An acquittal in criminal trials does not invoke the compensation provisions of the Essential Commodities Act if the statutory pre-conditions for such compensation are unmet.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 31340 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

2. The appellants herein were respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition, while the respondent herein was the petitioner therein.

Facts

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of a roller flour mill engaged in processing wheat products. On 20.04.2007, a raid was conducted by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Rationing Inspectors at the instance of the District Collector/second appellant, which led to the seizure of 2,34,610 kgs of wheat from the firm’s godown, alleging that the said wheat was exclusively meant for distribution through the Public Distribution System and that the respondent was in possession of the same for illegal sale.

3.1 Pursuant to the confiscation, prosecution was launched against the managing partner of the respondent, alleging offences under Section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 . Crime No. 247/2007 was registered against the managing partner and a charge sheet was filed. C.C. No. 656/2007 was tried before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Changanacherry, which resulted in the acquittal of the firm and the managing partner vide judgment dated 13.03.2015.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) call for records leading to passing of Ext.P7 order and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari;

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to arrive at the selling price to the Government for the wheat seized from the petitioner firm as Rs.12/kg of wheat as envisaged in Section 6C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which is the price paid by the petitioner for procuring the same;

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to grant reasonable interest for the price of wheat seized calculated from the day of seizure of the same;

(iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to refund the petitioner firm the amount sought for in Ext.P5 representation; and (v) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the following terms:

“6. In the instant case, the relevant Section that governs is Section 6C (2), as there is no case that the commodity seized is of the nature mentioned in Section 6A (2). As Section 6C (2) applies, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the price thereof as if it had been sold to the government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of seizure, and such price shall be determined in the case of food grains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub- Section 3 B of Section 3 .

7. Section 3B states that an amount equal to the procurement price of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, as the case may be, specified by the State Government, with the previous approval of the Central Government having regard to-(a) the controlled price, if any, fixed under this section or by or under any other law for the time being in force for such grade or variety of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils; (b) the general crop prospects; and the other c