JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises for decision in this case is whether a person prosecuted for the offence of violation of an order issued under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is entitled to get back his confiscated vehicle on his acquittal in the criminal case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following: THE petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-4/c 9810, which was being plied as a public goods carrier. THE said vehicle was intercepted on 10. 1. 1996 by the Mavelikkara Police, while it was transporting wheat from Kollam to Changanassery. THE vehicle was detained, alleging that the wheat transported was ration wheat to be distributed through public distribution system. THE same was being transported without any permit. Based on the report of the S. I. of Police, Harippad, the District Collector, Alappuzha, the 2nd respondent herein issued Ext. P1 notice under S. 6b (1) of the Act, proposing to confiscate the wheat, the tarpaulin used to cover it and the vehicle used to transport it. THE petitioner submitted Ext. P2 reply, objecting to the confiscation of the vehicle. Apparently, he was unconcerned with the wheat, as he was not its owner. THE District Collector heard the petitioner on 1. 1. 1997. Considering the objection filed by him and also the points raised by him at the time of hearing, the said officer confiscated the vehicle. THE petitioner was given option to pay the market value of the vehicle, on the date of seizure in lieu of confiscation.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Unni v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 11 : 1982 KLJ 716, submitted that on acquittal the petitioner is entitled to get the vehicle back. The said decision fully covers the case of the petitioner. But, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the said decision requires reconsideration. According to him, it does not lay down the correct legal position.