RANJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court is amazed at the casual manner in which the citizen 'sproperty are dealt with by supposedly senior responsible officers of the State.

(2.) FROM petitioner 'spremises, 63 bags of wheat and 43 bags of rice, each containing 50 Kgs., was seized on 23.2.2008 at about 9.30 pm. Petitioner 'sshop is located at Mithanpura in Muzaffarpur Town. The ground for alleged seizure was that on inspection, it was found that the bags bore marking of Food Corporation of India and were machine stitched. It was, accordingly, alleged that wheat of FCI was being misappropriated for wrongful gains by sale in blackmarket. Seizure being effected, a report thereof in terms of Section 6A of EC Act was forwarded to the Collector, Muzaffarpur on basis whereof Confiscation Case No. 3 of 2008 -2009 was instituted and notices issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 6B of the EC Act. In the meantime, petitioner apparently moved this Court for release of the seized wheat and rice by filing Cr. WJC No. 538 of 2008. which was disposed of on 19.9.2008 directing release of wheat and riece in favour of petitioner subject to the criminal case and confiscation proceedings but it seems by the time the order was communicated, by an interim order, the Collector, Muzaffarpur had already ordered for sale and the stocks of wheat and rice were sold and the money deposited in Government Treasury. Petitioner then filed show cause clearly stating that the wheat and rice that was seized was his stocks. They were not FCI wheat and rice. Nowhere did FCI claim any such stocks. Machine stitching is done by private individuals as well. FCI bags are available in bundles in the market. Collector directed petitioner to submit evidence in support of his claim. Petitioner did not do so and sought time. Time was refused and by the impugned order dated 13.12.2008, the Collector passed orders for confiscation which is challenged before this Court.

(3.) SHRI N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire exercise right from culminating in the confiscation order has been wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that so far as wheat and rice are concerned, there is neither any storage restriction nor any movement restriction nor any licensing requirement under any order made under the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that there is no statutory price fixation under Essential Commodities Act in relation to wheat and rice and that being so, there is no question of black - marketing of wheat and rice as held by this Court as far back as in 1982 PLJR 304 in Pritamlal Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Others. He further submits that before the Collector can assume jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceeding or order confiscation, it is incumbent upon him to find that any provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is violated in absence whereof the very initiation of the proceedings becomes wholly without jurisdiction and the order of confiscation is also without jurisdiction. He further submits that a reference to the order in question would show that Collector has not given any finding with regard to violation of any provision of any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. He has acted merely on suspicion and surmises. It is further submitted that a first information report is merely an allegation but it is not known under what jurisprudence, the learned Collector has treated the first information report as a gospel truth for this Court has more than a decade back held that any ipse dixit stated by the State cannot be taken to be gospel truth and before a person is required to defend his case, it is for the State to establish by cogent materials its case. Here, the Collector had accepted the first information report as a gospel truth and treated it as a judgment of petitioner 's criminal acts. That is not permissible or sustainable in law.