CHANDESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by four persons challenging the order dated 24th February, 1976 passed by the District Magistrate of Nalanda at Biharsharif (respondent No. 2) confiscating 36 bags of coarse rice weighing 69 maunds, in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon, him under Section 6A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 (briefly the 'Act'). A copy of the relevant order is Annexure 4 to the writ application.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the passing of the impugned order are these: On 18.9.1975, the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Biharsharif, in course of his inspection at Madhopur Bazar, under Chandi Police Station, is said to have found Raghunath Sah (respondent No. 4) carrying on business in the house of Ram Pravesh Pandit (respondent No. 3) without any licence. He checked the shop in presence of the Circle Officer. Chandi, and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Chandi Police Station, besides some local people, and found 36 bags of rice weighing 69 maunds, for which respondent No. 4 did not produce any licence or permit for its storage or business. The said Assistant Superintendent, thinking that there had been a cotravention of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, submitted a written report to the Officer-incharge of Chandi Police Station on the same day. On the slid report, the Chandi Police Station registered a case under Section 7 of the Act and took up investigation. The rice bags in question were seized in presence of the witnesses.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa at Biharsharif for release of the said foodgrains in their favour on the ground that Raghunath Sah (respondent No. 4) had nothing to do with the same and that the same belonged to them and they had kept, the same in the house of Ram Pravesh Pandit (repondent No. 3) the owner of the premises in question. As stated in the writ application, their further case is that they are agriculturists and reside at a short distance from Madhopur Bazar, which is the nearest market place for them for the sale of their agricultural produce. They claimed that on 17.9.1975, they had gone to Madhopur Bazar for sale of their rice, being, agricultural produce of their own lands. In paragraph 2 of the writ application, they have given out the quantity and number of rice bags which belonged to each of them. According to that statement, the first two petitioners bad brought 10 bags of rice each and the remaining two eight bags each. The rice, however, could not be sold on that day and, therefore, they kept the same in one of the rooms of the house belonging to respondent No. 3, with whom they had old acquaintance, and went away. In the meantime the rice bags were seized, as already indicated earlier. The petitioners have further stated that respondent No. 3 informed them on 19.9.1975 4bout the seizure of the rice bags in question and, accordingly, they are said to have made an application for the release of the rice bags in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa at Biharsharif, as already said earlier. The matter was postponed for some time as the Court wanted some information from the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the matter. On 8.10.1975, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the report of the District Supply Officer, Nalanda, informing the Court that a confiscation proceeding under Section 6A of the Act had already been started in the matter by the District Magistrate and as such, in view of the provisions contained in Section 6A of the Act, no order for the release of the seized lice bags could be passed on the petition of the petitioners.