LAWS(ORI)-2005-10-39

RAMA KHANDUAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On October 07, 2005
Rama Khandual Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Criminal Revisions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 29.8.2005 and 6.9.2005 of the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla in G.R. Case No.156 of 2005 on two separate applications filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one for release of her vehicle bearing registration No.OR -02 -AB -1250 and the other for release of 45 quintals of rice (90 bags) loaded in the vehicle, seized in connection with the aforesaid G.R. Case. Since both her applications were rejected by two separate orders as stated above, which are impugned in both the Criminal Revisions, the same are taken up together for final disposal.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she is the proprietor of M/s. Tulsi Traders, a registered dealer under Section 9, 9 -A, 9(C) of the O.S.T. Act and also is a dealer under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner deals with purchase and sale of rice, broken rice, rice bran, Atta, Suji, Maida, sugar, gunny bag and edible oil. She is also the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.OR -02 -AB 1250. In course of her business she purchases and procures rice from different places of the State and same is carried to her godown and business premises and the same is resold. In course of her business, she purchased 50 quintals of rice from Daspalla from different individuals. She has a waybill to carry 50 quintals of rice in her vehicle. After the rice was purchased for value, the driver of the petitioners vehicle who had all necessary papers including the registration certificate and way bills, loaded 45 quintals of rice in the truck and was proceeding to Bhanjanagar and he was to further pick up five quintals of rice later. The vehicle loaded with 45 quintals of rice was detained and seized by the O.I.C., Daspalla P.S. with some ulterior motive. The petitioner is a registered dealer dealing with rice for which there is no control order. The control regarding removal of rice, which was previously in existence, is no more there in view of the Notification No.PL.IC. 7/2000 - 9126/FS and SW dated 3.4.2002 published by the Government of India i.e. "The Removal of (Licensing requirements Stock limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Food Stuffs Order, 2002. Paragraph -3 of the said Order reads as follows :

(3.) AS per the above Notification for selling, stacking, transporting paddy or rice, no order issued under the E.C. Act will be applicable. Therefore, the question of attracting the provisions of Sec.7 of the E.C. Act does not arise in the case. There is nothing available on record to the effect that the rice carried by the petitioners driver in the truck was meant for food for work programme, as no competent authority, which has control over food for work, has ever reported any rice having been stolen or missed from their respective stock. As such it appears from the above, the vehicle and the rice were seized with a calculated move to harass and victimize the petitioner. Finding no other way, the petitioner approached the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla by way of filing an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle as well as rice. Even though the provisions of the above stated Notification dated 3.4.2002 was brought to the notice of the learned Court below, learned Magistrate, did not appreciate the fact and rejected the application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. on the ground tha under the E.C. Act, the District Magistrate and the Collector is empowered to release the vehicle and seized product in a case registered under the E.C. Act.