GHARSI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, rejecting the application of the appellant to return the sale proceeds of 75 quintals of paddy, statedly the case property, in a trial under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was ordered to be confiscated to the State in pursuance of the conviction.

(2.) The facts giving rise thereto and other relevant ancillary facts are these : On 28-1-1975, Ram Parshad, Head Constable, posted at Bani Barrier, between the States of Haryana and Rajasthan, received a secret information in the evening that one Tribhuvan, resident of Rajasthan, who was a habitual smuggler of paddy to Rajasthan, would be taking a truck load of paddy that night and if intercepted, could be caught red handed. On this information, other police officials and government functionaries were gathered at the Barrier at about 5.30 a.m. the following morning. Such a truck came and was intercepted when it was about to enter Rajasthan Border. It was stopped. The driver thereof was one Balram; the cleaner one Harbans Lal and Tribhuvan aforesaid was found sitting beside the driver. The accused had no permit to take the paddy to Rajasthan. Tribhuvan accused told the police party that the paddy was dearer in Rajasthan than in Haryana; the difference being Rs. 90/- per quintal in Haryana and Rs. 133/- per quintal in Rajasthan and that he was taking paddy to Rajasthan. The police party recovered 75 quintals of paddy from the truck. At the time, the Haryana Paddy Export (Control) Order, 1968 was in force prohibiting paddy to be exported to Rajasthan from Haryana. So the paddy as well as the truck was taken into possession. On these allegations, the prosecution came to Court. The three accused were tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, who convicted them under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. All of them were ordered to be released on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount on probation. They were further ordered to pay Rs. 250/- as costs of the proceedings under the Probation of Offenders Act. The driver and the cleaner did not file an appeal. However, Tribhuvan accused did file an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 24-9-1980.

(3.) On first impressions, it does appear that when convictions of Balram and Harbans Lal, co-accused of Tribhuvan, have not been interfered with and their convictions hold the day, then any property in respect of which they have contravened the Haryana Paddy Export (Control) Order, 1968 shall be forfeited to the government. But when viewed in the light of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge holding the case of the prosecution to be doubtful in the appeal of Tribhuvan, it has to be held that the property in respect of which Tribhuvan accused was said to be not guilty of the aforesaid order cannot be forfeited to the Government on account of his acquittal. Thus, the subtle point for consideration in this appeal is in whose respect (Sic) is the property, the export of which has led to the Export Order of the Government being contravened, which would justify the maintenance of forfeiture to the Government.