HARU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unusual and peculiar facts giving rise to this revision are that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)", Pichhore. happened to seize the total stock of 101 quintals of wheat from the possession of the present applicants. The seizure was effected in exercise of the powers conferred on the SDO (C) by virtue of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Wheat Stock Requisitioning Order, 1973, made by the State Government by virtue of the powers under the Essential Commodities Act. The provisions of the control order referred above authorised the SDO (C) to requisition the stock of wheat which may be in excess of 20 quintals. At the time of seizure of the respective portions of the stock from their possession, each of the applicants made a clear statement before the SDO (C) that the said stock of wheat did not belong to them and actually belonged to one Baijnath who had kept the same in their house. It appears that in order to avoid the requisitioning and the consequences of breach of the control order, Baijnath. when asked by the SDO (C) found it convenient to say that the said stock of wheat did not belong to him. Being faced with this situation that the persons from whose possession it was recovered did not own the same and Baijnath, the person, who was pointed out by them to be the real owner, also disowned the huge stock of wheat, the officers of the Revenue Department reported the matter to the Collector. In earlier proceedings it was held that no action could be taken in respect of the aforesaid stock of wheat in accordance with the provisions of Section 6a of the Essential Commodities Act. Under these circumstances, the Collector thought it proper to direct the SDO (C) to deal with the property as unclaimed property. The SDO (C) made a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the local area purporting to be one under Section 457 of the old Code for necessary directions to keep the property at the disposal of the State Government, if there was no claimant of the same. The Magistrate entertained the said report made by the SDO (C) and issued a proclamation as required by the provisions of Section 457 (2) of the Code, On issuance of the proclamation, the present applicants, for the reasons best known to them, appeared before the Magistrate and claimed that the stock of wheat which was recovered from their possession should be returned to them because it belonged to them. The Magistrate directed that the stock of wheat be returned to them. The Magistrate totally ignored the vital circumstances that earlier all these very applicants had denied the ownership of the stock of wheat before the SDO (C) in their statement recorded by him and specifically stated that the wheat belonged to Baijnath. Baijnath also did not claim the wheat to be his own either before the SDO (C) of during the proceeding taken by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 457/458 of the Code.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred an appeal purporting to be one under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 458 of the Code before the Sessions Court. The sessions Court took into consideration the undisputed relevant and vital circumstances that these very applicants had already denied the ownership of wheat. They had made false claim according to their convenience before the Magistrate by saying that the wheat belonged to them. Under these circumstances, the Sessions Court set aside the order made by the Magistrate and since Baijnath also had not claimed the stock of wheat, passed an order that the property shall remain at the disposal of the state.

(3.) IT would be significant to mention that since the property involved was stock of foodgrains subject to speedy and natural decay, the same had already been sold by auction and the amount had been deposited in the Government Treasury. Thus, by virtue of the order made by the Sessions Court in the appeal, the applicant could not get the amount of the price recovered on disposal of the stock of wheat. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred this revision before this Court.