NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh and Mr. N. K. Agrawal, who has followed him, have raised some interesting questions of law. The application has been filed for quashing of the confiscation proceeding Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in Confiscation Case No. 8 of 1976, pending before the District Magistrate of Gaya, respondent No. 2, who has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, why sugar weighing 36.26.000 quintals seized in course of a raid conducted on 11th of June, 1976, by respondent No. 3, be not confiscated.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 3, after conducting the raid sent a written report (Annex. 1) to the officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police Station. Gaya, on the basis of which a formal F. 1. R. has been drawn up and a case registered Annexure '1' does not contain the complete report of respondent No. 3, and that portion of it which has been left out. has been filed on behalf of the State as An-nexure 'A' to their counter-affidavit. The report read as a whole shows that the petitioner, who is a licensee under the Bihar Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1973, was allotted and lifted 134 quintals of sugar, but entered only 124 quintals in his stock register. According to the authorities, the petitioner has sold in black market 10 quintals of sugar, which he has not entered in his stock register and which was also not available in his business premises at the time of the search and seizure. What was seized was the quantity of sugar, which was found in the business premises of the petitioner at the time of the search and which tallied with the balance shown in the stock register.

(3.) A point has been taken in the petition that in view of the fact that the stock of sugar found in the business premises of the petitioner tallied with the balance of sugar as shown in the stock register, the petitioner had committed no offence. However, in view of the filing of Annexure 'A' by the State this point has not been pressed.