JITENDRANATH DE Vs. ST OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against an order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate of Serampore regarding disposal of 256 bags of rice and 105 bags of paddy seized by the police in connection With a case under section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1955. It appears that the nine petitioners had purchased the seized rice and paddy and were carrying them in two trucks when the police seized the stock. The report of the officer-in-charge of Jangipara Police Station sent to the sub-divisional officer of Serampore on December 9, 1966, states that the seizure was made under section 550 of the Code of criminal Procedure with a view to proceed under section 55 of the Code read with section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1955.

(2.) THE seizure list in respect of the seizure is not on the record. Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the Rule produced before me carbon copies of the two seizure lists which were apparently made over to his clients by the police officer concerned. It appears from the seizure list that along with the rice and paddy that was seized, the police also seized the cash memos in respect thereof and also the tokens representing applications for licences under the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1966 made by the government under the Essential Supplies Act which requires taking out of licence for dealer who wants to deal in rice or paddy in the non-rationed areas. In view of the cash memos and these tokens, it does not appear how the rice and paddy could have been seized at all.

(3.) THE record of the magistrate shows that after the seizure, the nine petitioners filed an application before him praying that the rice and paddy seized be handed back to them. The learned magistrate sent the petition to the court inspector for a report. The court inspector reported that-