SOMISETTI RAMANAIAH Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in foodgrains. On 24-1-1973 he was found transporting 360 bags of rice in three lorries. The petitioner as well as the drivers of the lorries were prosecuted before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Tirupati in C. C. No 19 of 1975 for contravention of c1. (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970 read with Ss. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. A Criminal Appeal No. 730/1976 was preferred by the State to this Court which was dismissed on 13-8-1977. Meanwhile, the District Revenue officer also proceeded under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and as he was satisfied that there was a contravention of the order referred to above he directed confiscation of the goods seized. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Judicial authority namely Sessions Court, Chittoor under S. 6-C of the Act. His appeal was dismissed and the order of confiscation was confirmed.

(2.) In the course of certain interlocutory proceedings in a writ petition filed in this Court by the petitioner there was a direction to return the goods to the petitioner. As the order of confiscation of the District Revenue Officer was confirmed on appeal, the District Revenue Officer issued a notice in March 1977 directing the petitioner to pay Rupees 31,591.96 being the value of the rice confiscated but released to him under the directions of the High Court. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said notice. His contention is that as the prosecution for violation of the order resulted in an acquittal it is incumbent upon the District Revenue Officer to return the goods confiscated or the value thereof if the goods are not available and therefore he is not entitled to call upon the petitioner to return the value of the goods.

(3.) In support of the above contention Sri Innayya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on S, 8-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act which is in the following terms: "Where an order under S. 6-A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under 5. 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized such person shall be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the duty of the seizure of the essential commodity; and such price shall be determined" It is submitted that as the prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order confiscation has been made under S. 6-A ended in an acquittal the petitioner is entitled to the value of the goods in view of the clear language of the Section I am of the view that this contention is to be upheld. It is true that the order of confiscation was upheld by the Judicial authority in the appeal under S. 6-C (1), but at the same time the prosecution for contravention of the order in respect of which the order of confiscation is made ended in acquittal. Therefore, by reason of the second part of S. 6-C (2) the petitioner is entitled to the value of the goods.