P J ZACHARIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1975 on the file of that Court. The above revision petition was filed under the following circumstances: on 10 3 75, the Station House Officer, Changanacherry received information that a lorry load of paddy was being transported without requisite permission from Changanacherry to Kalady in the Ernakulam District. He accordingly proceeded and found the lorry KLO. 1949 proceeding with paddy and stopped the vehicle. There were 126 bags of paddy in the lorry. The articles were seized and the vehicle was also taken into custody. Crime No. 96/75 was registered The lorry was being driven by the second petitioner in this case. A mahazar was prepared. A requisition was sent to the District Collector, kottayam for immediate orders for the disposal of the paddy. The District Collector passed orders directing the sale of the paddy and for keeping the sale proceeds in revenue deposit. Before the orders were complied, on 13-3-7 5 the first petitioner filed O. P. 1200/75 before this Court praying for an order of injunction restraining the Collector from disposing of the paddy. Notice was given to the State in the above matter and on 213 75, this court passed the following order: "it is submitted by Mr. M. V. Joseph, the learned govt. Pleader that Crime No. 96/75 of the Changanacherry Police Station has been registered in the matter and the paddy which had been seized would be produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry. Therefore. I would vacate the interim injunction granted and direct the petitioner to approach the Magistrate's Court for appropriate relief. When moved by the aggrieved party, the Magistrate will dispose of such application in accordance with law. C. M. P. dismissed. The respondents will produce the paddy without any delay before the Magistrate's Court concerned. " On 22 3 75, the lorry with the load of paddy was produced before the Court and the Court directed the paddy to be kept in the custody of the police until otherwise ordered. On the same day, the first petitioner moved the Court for release of the paddy to him on terms. Since there was no proper representation on behalf of the Station House Officer, Changanacherry, the court directed release of the paddy on a bond for Rs. 2000/- to the first petitioner. A revision petition was filed by the State against the above order before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The case was remitted to the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Changanacherry for fresh disposal. The contention put forward on behalf of the State was that under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities act, the Court and the Collector are having concurrent jurisdiction for the disposal of the property and that as the Collector had already taken decision of the matter and had passed orders, it was not open to the Court to intervene and interfere with that order. The learned judicial Magistrate however, held that there is nothing in the Essential Commodities Act to exclude the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to pass orders under S. 457 of the Code of criminal Procedure (corresponding to S. 523 of the old Code) and that in this case, since the paddy had not been disposed of in pursuance of the orders of the Collector, the Court was competent to pass appropriate orders of its own. It was held that there were no adequate grounds to depart from the release order already made by that court. Aggrieved by the above order, the State preferred Criminal Revision No. 23/75 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The sessions Judge held that the District Collector is an authority competent to pass appropriate orders for disposal of the property under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and that the Criminal Court is not expected to pass another order in supersession of the orders passed by the Collector. The court further held that the order passed by the District Collector for distribution of the commodity and keeping the price in deposit pending enquiry was not without jurisdiction. The criminal revision petition was accordingly allowed. The petitioners have come up challenging the above order.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the lorry with the load of paddy was intercepted at Manakkachira in Changanacherry and a crime has been registered on the ground that no permit or other papers authorising the transport of paddy were found with the driver. The investigation, it appears, revealed that the paddy was being transported at the instance of one Appachan, a dealer in paddy at Changanacherry and that it was purchased from one thachappally Prabhakaran. The name of the first petitioner is not seen disclosed during investigation. The petitioners seem to have claimed the paddy only when they moved this court for delivery of the article in O. P. 1200/75. It is too early to say whether the paddy really belonged to the first petitioner or to somebodyelse.

(3.) THE Code of Criminal Procedure does not define the word 'proceeding'. THEre are a large number of decisions where the word 'proceeding' has been interpreted. Since the interpretation varies according to the nature of the Statute and the context in which the word is used, no purpose will be served by citing too many decisions. Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. f, page 5, interprets the word 'proceeding'. "the term 'proceeding' is frequently used to denote a step in an action, and obviously it has the meaning in such phrases as 'proceeding in any cause or matter'. When used alone, however, it is in certain statutes to be construed as synonymous with, or including, 'action'. Kochadai Naidu v. Nagayasami Naidu (AIR. 1961 Madras 247)deals with the matter as follows: "the word 'proceeding' is defined in the Shorter oxford Dictionary as "doing a legal action or process, any act done by the authority of a court of law". In "words and Phrases" Permanent edn. Vol. 34, a number of meanings taken from American decisions are given for the word "proceedings. " Two of them which I give below bring out the essential import of the words. (1) "the word "proceeding" ordinarily relates to forms of law, to the modes in which judicial transactions are conducted. " (p. 141) (2) "the term "proceeding" is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right and hence it necessarily embraces the requisite steps by which a judicial action invoked. " (P. 142 ). In Ramanathan Chettiar, In re 1942-1 Mad. LJ 111= (AIR. 1942 Mad. 390), Venkataramana Rao, J. construing the meaning of the term as it occurred in the Court-fees Act, 1870, observed that the word had been interpreted in various senses in different statutes according to the intent and scope of the statute, some time in a narrow sense and some time in a wide, and the word when used alone had been interpreted to mean "all judicial proceedings. "