KAILASH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the confiscation proceedit1gs initiated by the District Magistrate -cum -Collector (respondent no. 2) vide Confiscation Case no. 3 of 1992 including the order dated 29.2.92 passed by the Collector for sale of food -grains and Pulses seized form the business premises of petitioner no. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a short compass. Petitioner no. 1 is an agriculturist and petitioner no. 2 a wholesale licence dealer in food grains carrying on business in Khagaria town in the name and style of M/s. Deepak Kumar and Company. On 4.1.92 the Supply Inspector (respondent no. 3) inspected the business premises of petitioner no. 2 and in course of physical verification of the stock found 16 bags of maize of the total quantity of 15 quintals and 26 kilograms excess in stock. On that basis the entire stock of maize, paddy and Matar and Kurthi were seized vide seizure list, copy of which is Annexure -1. On the basis of the seizure made an F.I.R. copy of which is Annexure -2 was lodged for violation of the licence granted under the Unification Order. Subsequently a confiscation proceeding u/s. 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act was started and the petitioners were directed to show cause. The said show cause was not found satisfactory by the Collector by order dated 24.2.92 copy of which is Annexure -4 which 29.2.92 is impugned in this writ application.

(3.) SRI Nawal Kishore Agrawal learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of confiscation was only in respect of maize seized and not in respect of other Vs as they had already been released in favour of the petitioners. If the allegations made are believed only 15 quintals and 36 kilograms of maize was found in excess of the stock. It was argued that even according to Form -C of the Bihar Trade Articles (licences Unification) Order, 1984 petitioner no. 2 who was a wholesale licence dealer was required to maintain a stock register of daily account and was required to mention the opening stock on each day. He pointed out that it is not practical or feasible for any wholesale dealer to keep the accounts up -to -date during the hours of business as the opening stock on each day was likely to vary by sale of articles in course of the day or by arrival of similar articles in course of the business. Another argument advanced is that the excess of stock detected was so small in quantity that no mens rea could be attributed to the petitioners and the confiscation proceeding was liable to be quashed on that ground alone.