C UNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A motor vehicle K.L.T. 8988 was seized on 10-1-197 5 at Cheruvarakonam in Trivandrurn District in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as it was conveying 4 bags of wheat through the zonal area without any permit. Proceedings were initiated in pursuance of such seizure in accordance with that Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the Inter Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products Order, 1973. Complying with the required formalities, the Collector held that violation of the Order has been established and consequently directed the confiscation of the Vehicle under Section 6-A of the Act. From the proceedings of the Collector, an appeal was filed to the District Court, Trivandrum as provided under Section 6-C (1) of the Act by the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle. The appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile prosecution had been initiated for the contravention of the order in respect of which the order of confiscation had been made against the driver of the vehicle and another person. The case ended in acquittal.

(2.) The fact of the acquittal in the criminal case had been brought to the notice of the District Court when appeal under Section 6-C was pending before it, but it appears the copy of the judgment of the criminal court was not produced before the District Judge. While dismissing the appeal, the learned District Judge observed that it was open to the petitioner to produce that judgment before the District Collector and to file a petition before that authority for release of the vehicle. The court however made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion as to whether the judgment of acquittal would automatically enable the owner to claim the vehicle and it must not be understood as implying that the petitioner has a right for the vehicle once the criminal case has ended in acquittal. The District Court was only giving the petitioner liberty to move the District Collector who would have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(3.) In consequence of the District Judges observation, the petitioner moved the District Collector for the return of the vehicle which was rejected by that authority. An appeal was moved before the District Judge against such rejection.