GAJALA PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 15.10.07, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1108/07 (Annexure-6) and 18.9.07 (Annexure-5) passed in Case Crime No. 261/07. Learned C.J.M., Basti rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release of 300 bags of rice and by order dated 15.10.07 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision filed against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that she is the owner of rice-mill and has a licence for production of rice. Its licence number is 2 MASKNWA/02 and she has also a licence for sale of dal and dalhan with No. 361 Maskana/02. THE petitioner runs a rice mill in the name and style of Hind Agro Industries, Babhanan Maskanwa, district Gonda. On 29.7.07 three hundred bags containing 150 quintals of rice were loaded in truck No. U. P. 85/8265 for sale in the open market through Manish Trading Company, Naveen Mandi Sthal, Gonda and form 9-R, bills, gate pass were duly prepared and issued as per rules. THE petitioner was required to pay 60% levy charge to the State Government and as per stock register the firm had given 60% to the levy charge of the State Government and thereafter, 150 quintals were to be sold in the market. When the truck was carrying these bags it was seized by respondent No. 2, Ram Nayan, who was then Incharge, Zila Khadya Vitran Adhikari. THE truck was taken to the police station. At the time it was seized, illegal demand was made but the driver refused and thereafter the truck driver was also challaned under Section 3/7 E. C. Act. This rice belongs to the petitioner and was brought from her rice mill and was being taken for sale to Manish Trading Company. THE petitioner also has a machine for stitching the bags and he also used to purchase old bags and builti threads.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is owner of this seized rice and it should have been directed to be released in her favour but learned lower courts have erred in refusing to release on the ground that the matter for confiscation of the rice under Section 6A of the E.C. Act has been referred to the District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as yet no confiscation order has been passed in the matter. He also submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill and has a licence to produce the rice and it was produced in her mill and as per the rules, it was being sent for sale. As against it the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that this rice belongs to the Antyoday Scheme and was meant for public distribution and was being transported from godam near village Didva for black-marketing and was rightly seized.