MODERN MILLS LIMITED HUBLI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of Vanaspathi having its factory at Hubli. It appears that, in the midnight of 18th and 19th January, 1988, a consignment of 660 tins of Vanaspathi which was being carried in truck bearing No. CAK 1675 belonging to the petitioner, was seized by the Revenue Inspector within the limits of Dharwad District, for the alleged contravention of the Karnataka Edible Oils, Edible Oil Seeds and Oil Cakes (Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1976. On the following day i. e. , 19-1-1988, police registered Crime No. 7/88 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') and proceeded with the investigation. In the meantime, on an application filed by the petitioner, the seized tins were released in his favour by the Collector under his order dated 6-2-1988 subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. According to the petitioner, he had furnished the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,06,130/- in favour of the Collector, Hubli, which has been kept alive till this date.

(2.) PURSUANT to seizure, the Collector also initiated aconfiscation proceeding in terms of Section 6-A of the Act and after issuance of notice and hearing the petitioner, the commodities seized were confiscated by order dated 28-3-1988 (Annexure-B ). Against the said order, the petitioner went in an appeal before the State Government under Section 6-C of the act. The same also stood dismissed by an order dated 1-2-1997 (Annexure-C ). During the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the police on completion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not contravened any order made under Section 3 of the Act and as such, filed 'b' final report before the Special Judge, Hubli. The Special Judge, on consideration of the report and after issuance of notice to the complainant, who happened to be the Police Sub-Inspector, bendigeri, accepted the said report by holding that in his opinion no case could be made out to warrant issuance of any process against the accused. The certified copy of the order so passed has been placed on record along with the memo,

(3.) IN view of the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal prosecution, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that, despite the adverse orders passed against him in confiscation proceedings, in view of Section 6-C (2) of the Act, the goods need to be released in favour of the petitioner unconditionally and as such, the bank guarantee given by the petitioner in favour of the Collector should be deemed to have been revoked.