ROHAN LAL ARJUN LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in Barauni Rail P.S. Case No. 140/90 (G.R. No. 2825/90). The ground on which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding is that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is illegal, and for the same reason the confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner under section 6A of the Act in Cr. Misc. Case No. 29/90 pending before the Collector, Begusarai is also illegal. It is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct release of the sum of Rs. 1,60,560 which represents the sale proceeds of the foodgrains in question, namely wheat, which has been deposited in the Government Treasury.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on business as general merchant and common &gent. Its normal place of business is Delhi and it holds a valid licence for carrying on business in wheat under the provisions of the Delhi Wheat (Licensing and Control) Order, 1988, and a copy of the licence issued in its name has been annexed as Annexure-1. In the district of Begusarai at Teghra there is a. firm known as M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill. In the month of October, 1990 the aforesaid M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill had placed an order on the petitioner-firm for supply of wheat. Accordingly, the petitioner- firm sent consignment of 550 bags of wheat under cover of three bills Nos. 895, 896 and 889, dated 26.10.1990, 16.10.1990 and 27.10.1990 respectively for a total of 550 bags. The consignment was dispatched in railway wagons from Delhi, and its destination was Barauni Junction. The railway receipt was issued in favour of self so as to secure payment before the goods were delivered to the consignee. The consignee M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not pay for the consignment and take deli very of the goods with the result that the railway receipt was returned to the petitioner-firm. Despite persuasion M/s. Bajrang Roller Mill did not honour their commitment. Since the goods were lying in the railway go down and were incurring liability the petitioner firm sent its Manager to arrange for the sale of consignment to any other trader. Ultimately, M/s. Sultania Enterprises agreed to purchase the wheat on consignment basis, and wrote a letter agreeing to accept the goods on consignment basis. The Manager of the petitioner-firm, accordingly, informed the District Supply Officer, Begusarai, by his letter dated 30th November, 1990. It appears that the District Supply Officer also directed M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill to deposit the price of Wheat, and accept the goods, failing which it was directed that the wheat may be delivered to MIs. Sultania Enterprises. A copy of the letter of the District Supply Officer is annexed as Annexure 3-A. Despite this letter of the District Supply Officer M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not deposit the amount nor did they take any interest in taking the delivery of the goods, but it appear that they had other intentions. According to the petitioners, on an application being made by the Director or M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, the D.S.P. (Food), Darbhanga Camp, Barauni Junction, intervened, and on 3.12.1990 at about 3 P.M. seized the entire sack of wheat from the railway godown. Subsequently, on 4.12.1990 he lodged a First Information Report alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner firm had sent from Delhi 550 bags of wheat under the cover of three bills in the name of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, but with a view of so the same in black market had negotiated for sale thereof with M/s. Sultania Enterprises. Since the petitioner had no licence in Bihar for storage or sale of wheat, and the storage was more than 500 quintals, i.e., above the storage limit, the petitioner and others have committed an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The matter was still under investigation when the instant not petition was filed. Pursuant to the report regarding seizure, the Collector, Begusarai, initiated a confiscation proceeding being Cr. Misc. Case no. 29190. In the confiscation proceeding the Collector heard the petitioner as well as M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill and M/s. Sultania Enterprises, and ultimately directed release of the wheat in favour of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill with a condition that the price of the wheat deposited by that firm shall be kept deposited in the treasury. This order was passed on 28.1.1991. The petitioner filed a petition before the Collector, Begusarai, for release of the amount representing the sale proceeds of the wheat in question on their furnishing security, but that was rejected by the Collector by order dated 6.1.1992 with an observation that the final order in the case will be passed only after the disposal of the criminal case pending in the Court of Special Judge, Begusarai.

(3.) Two main submissions have been urged before me in support of this application. It was firstly contended that on the face of the First Information report, no offence whatsoever was made out. Secondly, it is submitted that the criminal prosecution under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well as the confiscation proceeding under section 6A of the Act are illegal, since the same have been initiated on the basis of the report of seizure by an officer not competent to do so.