NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing of order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the revisional Court whereby he has upheld the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by District Collector whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Sec. 6-A (3) (C) of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Enforcement Officer, Sri Ganganagar, while on patrolling duty, intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13 GA 3719 and on search 1805 liters of diesel was seized from the above vehicle and an F.I.R. No. 210/2009 was registered for the offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Surendra Kumar and Devilal before the competent Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged Surendra Kumar and Devilal for the offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The State preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed by the revisional Court.

(3.) Apart from this, proceeding under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act were taken-up before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the District Collector ordered that diesel and vehicle should be confiscated. Being aggrieved of the said order, appeal was filed by the present petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 3.12.2010, allowed the appeal and directed that the vehicle in question and diesel be released in favour of the present petitioner and it has been decided on the State level that no appeal or revision should be filed against the order of the Sessions Judge and hence all the proceedings stood decided in favour of the present petitioner and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 2 to release the vehicle as well as diesel in his favour. But, the petitioner was shocked to receive a notice dated 18.7.2011 whereby the petitioner was called to explain some facts that in criminal proceedings, Surendra Kumar and Devilal were discharged on the ground that they were having diesel as per the notification of the State Government and two persons can carry 2000 litres of diesel without license, whereas in the proceedings under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the diesel has been claimed by the present petitioner and hence these facts should be explained.