SUBHASH CH DEY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 10. 08. 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Money Suit No. 19/1998 stands impugned in the present appeal. By that judgment, the learned Trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for an amount of Rs. 7,38,338/- being the sale proceeds of the seized rice from his possession along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D. K. Biswas with Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE short fact given rise to the present proceeding may be noticed at the outset. The appellant Subhash Chandra Dey is the Proprietor of M/s Joy Ram Hardwares and Shibu Trading in Dharmanagar town, North Tripura District. On 21. 03. 1992, a Food Inspector of the State Government inspected his shop and seized 155215 Kg. of rice on the allegation that the same were ration rice meant for Public Distribution System. He also seized furniture, fan and TV from the shop, though the same were released later. The Dharmanagar P. S. Case No. 12 (3)/92 under Section 7 (i)a (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'e. C. Act') was registered against the appellant herein, his father Sunil Chandra Dey and his driver Nityananda Das. The seized rice was placed at the disposal of the District Magistrate and Collector of dispose of the same for Rs. 7,38,338/- The sale proceeds were deposited in the Treasury. Upon completion of the investigation, the matter was submitted to the learned Special Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, where the Special Case No. 2/92 was registered. The question that fell for consideration before the learned Special Judge was whether the seized rice was found in exclusive possession of the accused persons. The appellant herein, did not take any stand that the rice was seized from his exclusive possession. The learned Special Judge, after careful appreciation of the prosecution evidence, observed that exclusive possession of the seized rice by the accused persons could not be proved and, therefore, depending upon the deposition of P. W. 9, who is a technical expert that the sample of rice taken by him from the Chandpur godown were different from the seized rice, acquitted the accused persons. After acquittal from the Court of learned Special Judge, the appellant herein advanced a claim to the learned Collector for disposal of the sale proceeds of seized rice. The learned Collector disposed of that claim by order dated 24. 01. 1998 after giving notice to the appellant herein. While disposing of the claim, the learned Collector placed reliance on the observation of the learned Special Judge. The relevant part of the said order of the learned Collector is quoted below:-