SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY in filing the appeal is condoned. Sham Lal was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in case FIR No. 24 dated 24.2.1995 of Police Station Sadar, Rewari, by Special Judge, Rewari Vide order dated 14.03.1997 and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. Vide the same order, Tata-Four Wheeler bearing registration No. RJ-02-G/1665 belonging to Sanjay Kumar was confiscated to the State.

(2.) ON 24.01.1995, Inspector CIA Staff, Rewari, Shri Pohap Singh was present at railway crossing Kutubpur in connection with general checking alongwith Head Constable Surrender Singh and others where he received secret information that Sham Lal S/o Chiranji Lal was having a cement godown at Bharawas Road, Rewari near a temple where he keeps duplicate cement for sale and that if a timely raid was conducted at that godown, duplicate cement could be found being unloaded in that godown and Sham Lal could be apprehended red-handed. On the receipt of this information, case was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rewari under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Inspector Pohap Singh accompanied by Head Constable Surinder Singh etc. reached the spot and raided that godown. He found that Sham Lal was present there and was busy in the un-loading of the cement from Tata-Four-Wheeler bearing registration No. RJ-02-G-1665. In all, 90 bags of cement were found there, out of which 85 bags of cement were still in the vehicle while 5 bags had been unloaded. Out of those bags, 45 bags were bearing the ISI specifications mark JK 43, 45 of mark ISI Chetak Super grade thereon. From each of these bags the samples were sent for analysis to the Director, FSL, Madhuban. Vide report Exhibit, the Director, FSL, Madhuban found the samples as not conforming to the ISI specifications. After trial Amar Singh was acquitted while Sham Lal was convicted and sentenced as noted above and the said Tata-Four-Wheeler was ordered to be confiscated to the State.

(3.) IN support of this submission, that notice should have given to the petitioner by the court and he should have been heard, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw support from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 401 where it has been laid down that before an order directing the disposal of property seized under Section 517 Cr.P.C. (old Code) is passed, opportunity of hearing has to be given to the party aggrieved.