STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JIYUT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter arises out of an order dated 9.2.2010 passed by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 84 of 2010 directing the ACJM, Hilsa to release the wheat loaded on a tractor-trailor in favour of petitioners, which were seized by the Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai. The said release was subject to final decision in the confiscation proceeding. ACJM, after receipt of the said order of this Court, transferred the case to the Court of SDJM, Hilsa and the SDJM, Hilsa, vide order dated 23.2.2010, accordingly directed the Officer-in-Charge of Hilsa Police Station to release the wheat in favour of petitioners. However, the Officer-in-Charge did not release the wheat on the plea that the same was not seized by him and it was not in his custody. Hence, he sent a letter on 26.2.2010 to that effect to the S.D.J.M. as well as to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa.

(2.) When the wheat was not released, Petitioners filed modification application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 26140 of 2010. In the said application Block Supply Officer filed his show cause stating that, in view of orders of this Court in the Cr. Writ, he had sought further guidelines from the District Magistrate through the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his letter dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure-S/9). He further stated in his show cause that finally, on the oral orders of Sub-Divisional Officer to sell the wheat, he wrote a letter on 3.4.2010 (Annexure-S/10) to Awadhesh Kumar Patel, the Fare Price Shop Dealer, in whose custody the seized wheat was lying, directing him to sell the wheat. Thus, ultimately, when he did not get any guidelines, either from the Sub-Divisional Officer or the District Magistrate, he got the wheat sold between the periods 8.4.2010 to 13.4.2010.

(3.) On 23.2.2011, this Court noticed the show cause filed by the Block Supply Officer from, which it appeared that he had sought for further guidelines, from the Collector, Nalanda through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa in view of the orders passed by this Court in Cr. Writ. Learned counsel for the Block Supply Officer had also submitted that, in spite of the letter sent by him, he did not receive any guidelines from the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer and therefore, he was compelled to order for sale of the wheat in view of earlier orders of the District Magistrate. It was also noticed by this Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer had the knowledge of the orders of this Court well in time still he did not recall his earlier order dated 23.2.2010 and did not direct the Block Supply Officer to cancel the process of sale of the wheat. In the background of this fact, the Court directed for registration of a contempt proceeding against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, whereupon, Original Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 2011 was registered.