SYED AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the common order dated 2 3-1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, UK, Karwar in Crl.A No. 19/81 along with other appeals, di - missing the same as being not maintainable and confirming the order dated 31-3 1981 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, UK, Karwar in No. CSD EOM- SR 34/80-81.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are :- That on 2 3 1981, PSI of Sirsi Market Yard conducted a surprise raid in Sirsi town and checked the accounts of the mill premises of the petitioner and on verification he found that the petitioner possessed 22 quintals of rice (Alur Sanna), 20 quintals of Raja Bhog, raw rice and 5 quintals of TI 41 raw rice, in all 47 quintals in exces of the stock recorded in the accounts. The PSI attached the said stock and gave the same to the safe custody of the opponent and also registered a case in crime No. 16/81 of the said PS and submitted proposals to the higher authorities under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') and also prayed that the seized stock may be disposed of as it is a perishable commodity. The Dy. Commissioner after receipt of the said report passed an order dated 31-3-1981 holding that after perusal of the report of the PSI that he is of the opinion that the rice so attached was perishable in nature and to avoid further deterioration in the quality of the seized rice he thought it fit to order to deliver the said 47 quintals of rice to the Agricultural Produce and Marketing Processing & Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Sirsi, for distribution to consumers on ration cards at Government rates through fair price shops nominated by the Tahsildar, Sirsi and he also directed that the proceeds should be credited by the said Society within 15 days to the PD Account of the Dy. Commissioner under the head account "509 Capital Outlay Food and Nutrition (1) Supply Scheme" and report compliance together with the credit challan.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge at UK in Crl. A No. 19/81 who heard the said appeal along with other appeals filed by other persons from whom also rice had been seized and passed the common order as afore said holding that the said appeal was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the same. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has challenged its legality and correctness in this Revision Petition.