PRADYOT KR DAS MONDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16-4-1985, on the basis of a secret information, the police intercepted a lorry, bearing No. WGW 1710, loaded with 147 bags of paddy on a road at Amritpal village within Raipur Police Station. The petitioner has claimed the seized 147 bags of paddy on alleging that he is the authorised agent of Bharati Rice Mills situated at Jhanti Pahari within Chatna P. S. in the district of Bankura. He has filed this revisional application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. for quashing the confiscation case No. 3 of 1985 before the learned Collector, Bankura, regarding the seizure of the paddy and for release of the paddy to him on furnishing of bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Collector, Bankura, who was pleased to pass orders on 23-4-85 and 7-6-85 for sale of the paddy.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he hired the truck, bearing No. WGW 1710 from Anil Baran Misra, the owner of the truck of Raipur. Being the authorised agent of Bharati Rice Mills, he purchased 50 Qtls. of paddy from Srikanta Patra of Sirsa under Cash Memo. No. 524 dt. 16-4-85 and had also purchased 52 Qtls. 90 Kgs. of paddy from Satya Patra of Sirsa under Cash Memo. No. 525 dt. 16-4-85. There are seals of the Inspector of Food and Supplies at Chatna on the backside of each of these two Cash Memos. The petitioner had handed over to the driver the copies of the Cash Memos as well as one journey ticket form bearing No. 95, duly signed by the driver and the petitioner. While the Truck was moving towards its destination to Bharati Rice Mills at Jhanti Pahari, the truck was intercepted by the police on the road at Amritpal village within Raipur Police Station. The driver and the khalasi showed all the documents to the police. The police refused to see all these valid documents and initiated a false case by lodging an F.I.R. alleging that the lorry was loaded at Chiltore for unloading the paddy at the godown of one Murari Marwari of Chakulia, Bihar and alleging further that on demand, the driver and the khalasis could not produce any sort of document or paper for carrying the paddy. The case of the petitioner is that after the seizure of the paddy at about 3 P.M. on 16-4-85, the petitioner had filed a petition in the court of the Judge, Special Court, Bankura, along with a firisti regarding the two Cash Memos, and the journey ticket and had stated in the petition that he had himself loaded the truck in village Sirsa after purchase from the cultivators. Even then the learned Collector, Bankura, passed the order for sale of the paddy on 23-4-85 and had subsequently passed an order on 7-6-85 making final the order for sale and converting it into order for confiscation till the disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner challenges this order for sale and the order for confiscation of the seized paddy.

(3.) The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner are that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner who was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and was not an accused but was only the authorised agent of Bharati Rice Mills. It is argued that a notice under S. 6B of the Essential Commodities Act ought to have been issued to the petitioner before directing the confiscation of the paddy. It is also contended that the order dt. 7-6-85 of the learned Collector is not supported by reason and should be set aside.