KIRANA GENERAL MERCHANTS Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition and the Criminal Revision Case arise out of orders passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Narayankhed in Crime Nos 75, 76, 77 and 78 of 1973. Certain foodgrains being transported in four lorries were seized from the possession of the drivers of the said lorries by the Police and were prouced before the Munsif Magistrate's Court Narayankhed. The learned Magistrate by bis order dated 22-9.1973 directed that as there is no place in the Court, the rice, jawar and sugar with the gunny bags may be sold by the Tahsildar, Narayankhed, at the rates fixed by him and also directed the deposit of the amounts realised in the Court. Against that order, the Kirana General Merchants' Association, Jogipet, represented by its Secretary has filed the above writ petition. They have also moved the Magisirate by way of a Criminal M. P. No. 276/73 to release the goods in their favour contending that no offence was committed in respect of the said foodgrains. That petition was rejected by the Magistrate by his order dated 29-9-1963 against which the said Association has filed Crl. R. C. 499 of 1973.

(2.) When the goods are seized by the Police regarding which any offence appears to have teen committed, they have power to seize and produce them before a Magisirate. In respect of the above mentioned goods, they were evidently seized because it was suspected that an offence punishable under the provisions of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 read with. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order or on the Restriction on the Movement of Foodgrains within the Belt area was committed. Therefore, the police was within its power in seizing and producing the goods before the Magistrate. Under S. 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (S 451 of New Criminal Procedure Code) if the property is subject to speedy or natural decay, or if is otherwise expedient so to do, the Magistrate is empowered to order such goods to be sold or otherwise disposed of Though rice, jawar and sugar which are seized and produced before the Magistrate are not subject to speedy and natural, decay in the ordinary circumstances, but inasmuch as they were in gunny bags and loaded in open trucks, exposed to sun and rain in the Court compound, they were liable to speedy and natural decay unless properly preserved. The learned Magistrate has found that there is no space within the court premises to store them. Having regard to the circumstances, it mast be assumed that the goods produced before the Court were liable to decay. If no orders were passed expeditiously for their disposal otherwise, they were likely to be damaged which would not be beneficial either to the accused in the event of their being acquitted or to the State in the event of their being confiscated ultimately. Therefore, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the Magistrate dated 22-9-73 was erroneous or without jurisdiction.

(3.) As the goods were seized by the Police and it appears that some offence has been committed with respect to those goods, the petitioner or the accused are not entitled to the release of the goods at this stage. Who is entitkd to the release of the goods will have to await the result of the enquiry or trial before the court.