SITARAM SHARMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF MANIPUR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings now pending before the A. D. M. in connection with F. I. Rs. 118 (2) 62, 119 (2) 62, 120(2)62 and 121(2)62 of the Imphal Police Station and to set aside the order of the A. D. M. for the auction sale of certain bags of paddy seized by the Police in connection with the said F. I. Rs.

(2.) THE petitioner had purchased in auction a large quantity of Andhra Pradesh rice and he was granted a permit by the Manipur Administration to export the said rice. Accordingly, he was carrying 240 bags of rice in 4 trucks. The trucks were searched at the border by the Police and according to the Police, there were 101 bags of Andhra Pradesh rice in the 4 trucks for which there was permit, besides 139 bags of Manipuri rice for which there was no permit. Thus, the case against the petitioner appeared to be that while he had a permit to export Andhra Pradesh rice, he was trying to export along with it, the said 139 bags of Manipuri rice for which he had no permit, and that this was an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Police seized all the 240 bags of rice even though the petitioner had a permit for the 101 bags of Andhra Pradesh rice. The petitioner, of course, denies that he was transporting any rice for which he did not have a permit. That is a matter to be decided in the trial.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Magistrate ordered on 30.5.1962 that 4 bags of rice from each of the trucks may be kept in custody as sample bags, in view of the contention of the petitioner that all the bags contained the seals of the Administration and that the remaining 224 bags may be sold by auction as they are perishable goods and cannot be kept in custody for long as they would be damaged. The order of the learned Additional District Magistrate does not show whether he made the said order under Section 523 Criminal Procedure Code or Section 5i6 -A Criminal Procedure Code. I take it that the order must have been passed under Section 523 Criminal Procedure Code, as the cases had not reached the stage of enquiry or trial before the A. D. M. But Section 523 does not give the power to a Magistrate to order the sale by auction of any seized goods. It is only Section 516 -A which gives the said power. But Section 516 -A Criminal Procedure Code will come into operation only during the enquiry or trial in a case. It is seen that at the time when the learned Additional District Magistrate passed the order on 30.5.1962, the Police had not filed the charge sheets against the petitioner and that the cases had not been taken cognisance of and hence the stage of enquiry or trial into the cases had not arrived. Hence, the learned Additional District Magistrate should not have ordered the auction sale of the rice bags and his order dated 30.5.1962 cannot therefore be sustained.