SHARDA KHANDSARI UDYOG Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S.482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (in short, the Code) is directed against the order dt. 18-9-1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Confiscation Case No. 50/87 whereby he had directed the Marketing Officer, Dhanbad to sell the seized 40 bags of sugar belonging to the petitioner by public auction or through fair price shop and to deposit the sale proceeds in the treasury.

(2.) It appears on 27-6-1987 the godown of M/s. Pradeep Kumar Shrawan Kumar at Manaitand, Dhanbad was inspected by the complainant Shri Vijoy Kumar Srivastava, Supply Inspector Dhanbad. He found 40 bags of cement stored in the said godown which was sent by this petitioner for sale through challan No. 197 dt. 22-6-1987 showing it as Khandsari sugar Sulpher. A sample was taken from these bags and on test the same was found to be sugar. Accordingly a case under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short the Act) was filed since 40 bags of sugar were stored in the godown without any valid licence. Subsequently confiscation proceeding under S.6A of the Act was started on 18-9-1987 and the learned Collector, Dhanbad asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the seized articles may not be confiscated fixing 19-10-1987 as the date for the filing of the show cause. However, by an order of the same date the learned Collector was pleased to order for the sale by public auction or through fair price shop of the seized articles on the ground that the same articles was required for the use for the public that it was subject to speedy decay. It is against this order that the present application is directed.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that no such order could have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the sugar in question was Khandsari sugar the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 are not attracted and the petitioner does not come within the purview of the definition of "dealer". On these grounds amongst others it has contended that the impugned order be quashed.