STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BODH NARAYAN SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th August, 1975 and decree dated 26th August, 1975 passed by Sri Aditya Narayan Chaturvedi, Additional Subordinate Judge-Ill, Jehanabad (Gaya). The State of Bihar is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are that Bodh Narayan Sao, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed money suit No. 22/1 of 1969/74 claiming compensation for the loss of wheat, weighing 116 quintals 8 kg. as also for damages for his malacious prosecution as also for damages on account of loss of his prestige in public estimation and damage to his business. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was a whole sale dealer in food grains and other articles and on 2nd August, 1967, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Shiv Pujan Singh and Digambar Jha, Anchal Adhlkari and the Supply Inspector inspected his business premises and seized 116 quintals of wheat upon the allegations that the respondent No. 1 had mixed foreign wheat with indigenous wheat and was indulging in black marketing. This wheat was seized and kept in the Block godown, Jehanabad. When there was a petition by the plaintiff-respondents for release of the seized wheat, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered that-let the seized commodity be sold to the Government. The plaintiff- respondents went in revision before the Sessions Judge, who stayed the order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. In the mean time, charge sheet was submitted by the Police under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but admittedly the plaintiff-accused was discharged from the case because the Government analyst reported that there was no mixture of foreign wheat with the indigenous wheat. However, the seized wheat got damaged in the flood water that had entered into the Block premises. The plaintiff-accused had earlier applied before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to release the wheat on cash security to be furnished by the plaintiff-accused and this request was also turned down. Hence, the plaintiff filed the concerned money suit for realisation of the price of the wheat with interest along with compensation for loss of his prestige and reputation in the Society as also for loss on account of damage to his business due to his unwarranted and unjustified hand-cuffing. The trial Court allowed the money suit, so far the price of the seized wheat was concerned and other reliefs sought for by the plaintiff respondent were refused by the trial Court.

(3.) So far the decree relating to the compensation for damage to the plaintiffs reputation and prestige is concerned, there is no cross-appeal nor cross-objection nor the findings of the trial Court in this connection were challenged before me. The refusal of relief relating to the loss of business prospect of the plaintiff-respondents has not also been assailed before me nor there is any cross-appeal or cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is confined to the grant of relief relating to price of wheat which was damaged without interest.