RAM CHANDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order dated 6.8.2005 was passed in confiscation case No. 17/97 -98 Collector, Sheohar by which it was noted that the petitioner submits that even if cost of seized commodities alongwith interest is not returned to him meaning thereby that the order of confiscation would stand, notwithstanding admitted acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case in which wheat and kerosene oil was seized his licence would be restored.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents State counter affidavit has been filed.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner is a dealer holding license under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order and was operating under the Public Distribution System. An inspection was conducted in a shop and certain quantities of wheat and kerosene were seized and a case was instituted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, in respect of the seized commodities as envisaged under Sec. 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. A report was made to the Collector, Sheoher who initiated the present confiscation proceedings being confiscation case no. 17/97 -98. During pendency of the confiscation case, in the criminal trial the petitioner was acquitted. Consequent to his acquittal he filed an application in terms of Sec. 6C(2) E.C. Act, for either return of the goods or for payment of price thereof alongwith interest as statutorily provided. In the meanwhile because of pendency of the criminal case the license of the petitioner was also revoked. It may be mentioned that the licencing authority is the Sub -Divisional Officer and not the Collector. Form the Impugned Order it is clear that when the confiscation matter was taken up, consequent to the acquittal of the petitioner, the Collector was mandatorily required by law in terms of Sec. 6C(2) of the Act to pass an order in terms thereof directing for the return of the goods and/or if that was not possible for payment of money value alongwith interest thereof. The said section gives no discretion to the Collector in this regard. The obligation cast on the Collector is in mandatory terms and has to be exercised by him suo moto. The petitioner did not even have to make a prayer for the same. It is by operation of law itself that the relief had to be granted to the petitioner.