FAKIRA SUBUDHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") seeking for a direction to the opposite parties for the release of seized items of properties which had been seized from the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act in connection with 2(c) CC Case No. 103/75. The seizure-list has been annexed as Annexure-1 which includes, inter alia, considerable quantity of coconut oil, til oil, groundnut oil, venaspati and mustard oil. Certain other items were also seized, but some of those items were earlier returned and some items were sold, the sale proceeds of which have been deposited in the Court. These seized articles had been kept in Zima of one Srinibas Pradhan who was working as the Secretary, Balugaon Regional Co-operative Marketing Society.

(2.) The petitioner was acquitted in the said case under Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, the appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Puri) passed an order directing return of the seized articles to the petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid order, the articles having not been returned to the petitioner, another application was filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, who vide his order dated 18-8-1990 directed return of the articles which had not been sold and further directed that the sale proceeds deposited in treasury be returned to the petitioner. In spite of the above order, the articles could not be returned to the petitioner as the Zimadar had failed to produce the goods. By order dated 18-8-1990, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had exonerated the proceeding initiated against the ex-Supervisor of Supply, as it was found that the articles though handed over to the succeeding officers, had been spoiled due to lapse of time. As already noted, ultimately the Magistrate directed the refund of sale proceeds deposited vide Treasury Challan No. 4, dated 6-4-1976 and further directed for return of the various quantities of oil of different kinds seized under the seizure-list.

(3.) The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to direct return of the seized articles. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel appearing for the R.C.M.S. and after going through the lower Court records, it is evident that the articles which had been seized cannot be returned to the petitioner in specie as the articles have been sold or damaged in the meantime, but there is no difficulty in regard to the sale proceeds which have been deposited in the treasury and the same should be returned to the petitioner, if not already refunded in the meantime.