BALRAM LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWENTY bags of rice weighing 17-1/2 Quintals were seized from the possession of Balram Lal of Village Madhour, Police Station Chandauli, District Varanasi by the Station Officer. He lodged a report with the Collector under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The case set up was that the rice which had been seized belonged to the Fair Price Shop of Gopal Krishna Srivastava son of Balram Lal and that Balram Lal was taking the rice for selling it in the black market. It is also alleged that when asked to show his records Gopal Krishan refused to show his Stock Register. It was therefore, prayed that permission be granted for sale of the rice seized by the police. A show cause notice was issued to Balram Lal. He set up a case that he was a farmer and that the rice belonged to him. He was taking the rice for sale in order to earn money for meeting the marriage expenses of his son Kamal Kant Srivastava which was to take place on 12th May 1980. He was trying to negotiate an agreement with one Jagannath for sale of the rice. Jagannath also contended that he had purchased rice from Balram and that the rice belonged to him. After considering the respective cases of the parties the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the rice belonged to the Fair Price Shop which was owned by Gopal Krishna and both Balram Lal and Jagannath had failed to prove their ownership of the same. He, therefore, directed that the rice be confiscated and sold and proceeds deposited in the treasury for disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed, before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi by Balram Lal which has been dismissed on 22nd September, 1980. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Counsel for the State has taken a preliminary objection that no appeal lay to the Sessions Judge, Varanasi from the order passed by the Collector. He bases this argument on the phraseology of Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and urges that there iis no proof that the Sessions Judge was appointed by the State Government concerned and had the judicial authority to hear an appeal against an order of confiscation under that section. I am unable to appreciate this submission for a number of reasons. In the first place no such objection was taken before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. If the State had taken up such an objection it would have been possible for material being placed before the Court that the Sessions Judge had the authority to pass the impugned order. The Stale submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi without any objection. From this circumstance a reasonable inference can be drawn against the State that the court of the Sessions Judge was in fact vested with the jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Otherwise I find no reason whatsoever for this objection not being taken from that court. Further if the State was really aggrieved by the (Order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass the order it should have filed a revision in this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. This has also not been done. In the instant case the question of jurisdiction is dependent upon the establishment of facts, which have not been objected to by the State or before this Court. As such, I am of the opinion, that the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the State has no legs to stand upon and must, therefore, be rejected out right.

(3.) POWERS of revision under Sec. 439 CrPC are to be exercised very sparingly in those cases where there is manifest miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the impugned order which has been passed by the Collector is that the rice shall be sold and its proceeds deposited in the Treasury for disposal in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if the accused is ultimately found not guilty in the trial he would get the price of the rice deposited in the manner aforesaid. No prejudice would be caused to him, as a result of the sale of the rice at this stage. As such the impugned order cannot be interfered with. I am supported in my view by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1979 ACrR 201, Hart Ram Gupta v. State of U. P.