SETAB SK. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred against an order dated 20.9.99 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Murshidabad E. C. Case No. 44/91 corresponding to T. R. 94-92 arising out Samserganj JS. Case No. 46/91 under Sec. 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E. C. Act, 1955.

(2.) It appears that the present petitioner was put up on trial before e learned Judge, Special Court, E. C. Act in the aforesaid case. On concluded trial, the learned Judge found the accused petitioner not guilty under Sec. 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E. C. Act for violation of paragraph 3(2) of the W. B. Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and violation of Para 3 of the W. B. Pulse and Edible Oil and Oil Seeds Licencing Control Order, 1978. Accordingly, the present petitioner was acquitted by an order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court dated 20.9.99. It appears that although the learned Judge recorded an order of acquittal thereby acquiring the present petitioner of the case, he passed an order directing confiscation of the seized articles. In my opinion, the impugned order in so far as it relates to the order of confiscation of the seized goods suffers from serious illegality. In case of conviction in a case under the E. C. Act, the learned Judge can pass an order of forfeiture but in case of acquittal, it is not proper for the learned Judge to pass an order of confiscation, confiscating the seized alamats and in such case the petitioner is entitled to get back the said articles or the price thereof.

(3.) Mr. S. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits tat the impugned order is an order passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court under Sec. 452, Crimial P.C. after the conclusion of the trial and such in order under Sec. 452, Crimial P.C. is appealable under Sec. 454. Crimial P.C. I find sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the State. The present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is converted into an application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. In view of the discussions made above, the present visional application is allowed. The impugned order, in so far as it relates to confiscation of the seized goods, is hereby set aside.