SUBHASHCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule was issued on 16.7.2003. The writ petitioner questions order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar dated 16.1.2002, whereby he has declined to credit Rs. 13,950/-, price of 31 palm oil tins, seized from the petitioner. Learned JMFC, Nandurbar, on 24.8.2001, directed acquittal of the petitioner for offence under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and under Section 417 of IPC, however, vide clause (3) of the order, he did not release the Muddemal property, and directed its confiscation to the State.

(2.) Basically, there was no adulteration; there was no illegal sale of palm oil, at the material time, from or by the petitioner; there was no proof of any infringement of provisions of the statute, no justifiable reasons were seen for confiscating the seized goods. This is more so, when the petitioner is acquitted in the main matter. None else has claimed the property, nor the State has also staked any claim to the property. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, referred above and that of the learned JMFC, is set aside. The sale proceeds of the seized palm oil tins be given to the writ petitioner with accrued interest, if it has earned any credit. Rule is made absolute as above.