BALRAM LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty bags of rice weighing 171/2 quintals were seized from the possession of Balram Lal of village Madhopur, Police Station Chandauli, District Varanasi by the Station Officer. He lodged a report with the Collector under Section 3/7 of the Essential Com-rnodities 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 Krishna 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 Kamla 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 has 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 obiection 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 is 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 tnat 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 State 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 decedent 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 outright.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has argued that for the order of confiscation is illegal because it is not stated specifically as to which is the control order which has been infringed by the applicant. In this connection the State counsel has rightly pointed out the existence of the U.P. Food Grain Dealers Licensing and Restriction of Hoarding Order 1976 under which no person is authorised to carry on business or to deal as a commission agent with respect of foodgrains covered by that order except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued in this behalf by the Licencing Authority.