GANGA BISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned District Collector, Jaisalmer in Case No. 4/2005 and the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Appeal No. 12/2008.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the police officers of the P.S. Ramgarh Dist. Jaisalmer stopped a Tanker No. RJ 19G-6542 on 7.7.2005. It was found that the tanker was being used for illegal transportation of 11500 ltr. of blue kerosene. Sumer Singh the driver of the tanker was not found holding any valid documents for possession of the kerosene. Pursuant to the seizure, an application under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act was filed before the Collector and the Collector directed sale of the kerosene in question and the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- received in pursuance of sale was deposited with the State Government. The petitioner claiming himself to be the licence holder in relation to kerosene in question applied to the learned District Collector u/s. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act claiming the sale proceeds of the kerosene on the ground that the kerosene had been purchased by the petitioner after being duly authorised for the same. Such application came to be rejected and the District Collector directed confiscation of the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the State. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Collector by an appeal filed before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 25.2.2009 rejected the appeal. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the orders of the Civil Supplies Department the petitioner had received the kerosene (after making the due payment) from the Salawas Depot of the I.O.C. On 6.7.2005 vide a bill no. 607968778. He submits that the petitioner had been allotted the kerosene vide an indent and that the driver Sumer Singh misappropriated the kerosene. He submits that the petitioner himself filed an F.I.R. No. 75 dated 7.7.2005 against Sumer Singh in this regard. He further contends that the prayer made by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner in relation to the kerosene recovered in this case has been turned down by the competent court. He thus prays that the learned Collector has committed a grave error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being returned the sale price of the kerosene in question.