KALIDASA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dt.13-5-1974 passed by the Sessions Judge Chitradurga in Crl. MA.32 of 1974 confirming the order dt.22-4-1974 passed by the Dy Commr Chitradurga in Case CSD 4 COM 70/73-74 so far as the said order ol the Dy Commr related to confiscation of 186 bags of paddy seized by the authorities competent to effect such seizure under Cl.11 of the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order 1966 (hereinafer referred to as the Order) from the premises of the mill 'Siddalingsehwara Rice Mills Davanagere'.

(2.) On seizure of considerable bags of paddy from the said mill the mill was called upon to disclose the source from which possession of the seized bags of paddy accrued. The records of the mill disclosed that the petitioner had sent these bags of paddy to the mill for hulling. It appears that the Asst Commr who seized the paddy bags mentioned in his report not the full address of Kalidasa Traders but only as Kalidasa Traders. There is one firm functioning under the name and style ' Kalidasa Traders Davanagree' in Davanagere. The petitionerfirm bears the same name but is functioning in Hiriyur In view of such a report of the Asst Commr the Dy Commr issued notice to the Davanagere firm and the Davanagere firm appeared before the Dy Commr and submitted that it tad nothing to do with the seized bags of paddy. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the Dy Commr on 4-4-1974 claiming ownership over these paddy bags and contending that the paddy bags had been sent to Siddalingeshwara Rice Mills by it. The claim of the petitioner was gone into by the Dy Commr as required by S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Dy Commr as already narrated held that 1200 bags of paddy seized from the said mill premises were to be confiscated. Out of these 1200 bags only 1062 bags were claimed by the petitioner as belonging to it. The petitioner preferred the said appeal before the Sessions Judge Chitradurga and the learned Sessions Judge passed the order now impugned.

(3.) The learned State Public Prosecutor contended at the out set that there were no bona fides in the claim put forward by the petitioner because it had put forward its claim at a belated stage while in fact the report of the Asst Commr showed that the petitioner-firm had nothing to do with the seized 1062 bags of paddy. The material already narrated in the preceding paragraph is sufficient to show that the report off the Asst Commr appeared to be vague inasmuch as the full particulars of the said owner of the paddy bags seized was not disclosed while the records maintained by the mill showed the petitioner as the firm which had sent that stock of paddy to the mill for purposes of hulling.