Point of Law: Confiscation of Vehicle - An order of confiscation has very serious civil consequences for person whose property is confiscated. Every citizen has a right to his property, guaranteed by Article 300-A of Constitution and the deprivation of that right can come about strictly in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to question an order of Mr. Ehsanullah Khan, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur dated 05.09.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2017, under Section 6-C of The Essential Commodities Act, 19551, dismissing the said appeal and affirming an order of Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, the then Collector, Shahjahanpur, ordering confiscation of the petitioner’s tractor along with its trolley, under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, with an option to pay in lieu of confiscation.

2. The facts that give rise to the present petition are these :

According to the State, on 11.09.2016 at 11 O’ Clock in the night, a tractor of Sonalika make, blue in colour, bearing Registration No. UP 27 Y 1676, along with a trolley, was carrying 41 bags full of rice. The tractor belonged to the petitioner, Munna Singh. The tractor was being followed by a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. UP 27 AB 6557, which had, for its occupants, Jagdish Singh and Surendra Singh. It is said that these two men were owners of the bulk of rice being carried on the tractor trolley. This tractor was apprehended by one Vishram Singh, and information was sent to Police Station -Paraur, District -Shahjahanpur. A police party arrived and took away the tractor, its trolley and the consignment of rice to the police station. Information was also given over telephone to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad. Thereafter, the Supply Inspector, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955” together with the Naib Tehsildar, came over to Village Khajuri and recorded the statement of the tractor owner, Munna Singh. Munna Singh apparently acknowledged the ownership of the tractor. It was revealed that one Rajnish, a native of the village, who runs a grocer's shop, had hired the tractor and the trolley, that was apprehended with the consignment of rice. Jagdish Singh, on the other hand, was ascertained to be a Fair Price Shop dealer. The Supply Inspector and the Naib Tehsildar undertook a joint inspection of Jagdish Singh’s Fair Price Shop located in Village Dari. Jagdish Singh was not found there. His wife laid the shop open, where the two officials found seven bags of wheat, three bags of rice and 20 kilograms of loose sugar. These commodities were not shown in the stock register.

3. On discovery of the aforesaid facts, a case was registered against Jagdish Singh and Surendra Singh on the basis of a First Information Report 2 lodged by Rameshwar Dayal, Supply Inspector, Jalalabad, as Case Crime No. 413 of 2016, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station -Paraur, District -Shahjahanpur. Post registration of the crime, the Station House Officer, Police Station -Paraur, moved the Collector under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, asking that the petitioner’s Tractor and the Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. UP 27 AB 6557, be confiscated in favour of the State, on ground that these were involved in carrying an essential commodity i.e. controlled rice, in contravention of control orders issued under the Act of 1955. The aforesaid report to the Collector was made by the Station House Officer, Police Station -Paraur vide Memo No. 9/16 dated 16.12.2016. The Collector, Shahjahanpur issued a notice dated 26.04.2017 to the petitioner, amongst others, requiring him to show cause against the proposed confiscation.

4. The petitioner submitted his objections to the show cause, being objections dated 03.05.2017. He said in those objections that his vehicle for short “FIR” has been shown involved in the crime falsely. It was urged that the petitioner had no criminal history, involving the vehicle or otherwise, and that he was not a previous convict. The tractor, together with the trolley, was financed by a certain Magma Finance Limited, and that the petitioner had to pay Equated Monthly Installments that he had been regularly paying up to the month of July, 2016. He said