NAZEER PASHA @ PASHA Vs. TOBACCO BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 2,22,049.49 ps. i.e. the amount realised from the sale proceeds of the tobacco which according to the petitioner belongs to him. The case herein has a checkered history. The respondents on the allegation that the petitioner was transporting tobacco without appropriate documents either to be a grower or trader had confiscated the same and accordingly a complaint dated 31-12-2000 was lodged stating that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 10, 12, 13 and 25 of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975. In that regard, criminal prosecution was also launched in C.C. No. 10937 of 2005. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent-Board keeping in view the nature of tobacco that had been seized had made an application under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking interim custody of the seized tobacco. On taking interim custody of the same, keeping in view its perishable nature, the same was sold and a sum of Rs. 2,22,049.49 ps. had been realised.

(2.) In the above background, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner concluded by the judgment dated 8-9-2010 (Annexure-D), the petitioner no doubt was acquitted of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Tobacco Board Act referred to above. Prior thereto, the petitioner made a representation seeking disbursement of the value of the tobacco which had been seized from him and the amount realised by the respondents. At the first instance, since the representation had not been considered one way or the other in accordance with law, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 18608 of 2004 disposed of on 23-7-2004. A direction had been issued to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 30-8-2004 (Annexure-H) has been passed wherein, it is indicated that the petitioner had not established with documentary evidence that the tobacco was authorisedly possessed by him. In the said circumstance, in view of the subsequent acquittal, the petitioner has once again made the representation as at Annexure-J to the petition and he is seeking consideration of the same.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify their action. Though the sequence of events relating to the manner in which the proceedings were initiated and concluded before the Court of learned Magistrate is not disputed, it is contended that notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was required to produce documents to indicate that he was either the grower of the tobacco or was authorisedly transporting the same. At least to the said extent, if it is established that he was authorisedly transporting the tobacco, the circular as relied on would be applicable so as to compound the offence and realise the penalty. It is contended that when this has not been established, the respondents would not be in a position to consider the representation in favour of the petitioner.