ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the Prevention of Rajasthan Food Grains (Prevention of Hoardings) Order, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'The Order') a campaign for the checking of the hoarding of food grains was arranged by the Collector, Barmer. The Naib Tehsildar, Barmer sealed the go down of one Keshrimal on March 14, 1973 on the suspicion that there was bajra in excess of the permitted quantity. It was complained that in the intervening night of 15th and 16th March, 1973 Keshrimal with the help of his sons and relatives viz. Tejumal, Nemichand, Birdhi Chand, Hamir Chand and Chunni Lal illegally took -out bags of bajra from the sealed go down and placed them at the house of Nemichand. On March 31, 1973 the go down was checked and 41 bags of bajra were found missing from the stock. The act of Keshri Mal and others was considered to be contravention of the Order as well as an offence under Sections 447 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them all for the aforesaid offences was registered. During the course of investigation 147 bags of bajra were recovered from the present petitioners and the investigating authority being of the opinion that the bajra so seized was connected with the alleged offences committed by Keshri Mal and his companions under the aforesaid provisions, charge sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Child Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. During the course of trial Keshri Mal died and proceedings against him were dropped. By the judgment dated March 28, 1973 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Hamir Chand. He however held Teju Mal, Chunni Lal, Nemi Chand and Birdhi Chand guilty for the offence under Sections 424 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to the one month's simple rigorous imprisonment. The 147 bags of bajra seized from the possession of the present petitioners were auctioned. The auction amount Rs. 8559/ - was ordered to be confiscated. The claim petition of the petitioners in connection with the bajra or the money were rejected. The four accused of that case preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The appeal was allowed by the judgment dated July 22, 1978 and all of them were acquitted.

(2.) IN dissatisfaction of the order of confiscation of the auction money of bajra, the present petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Judge by the judgment dated August 3, 1978 rejected the appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the proceedings against Keshrimal having been dropped, Hamir Chand being acquitted by the trial Court and the remaining accused by the appellate Court, the only course open to the Court was to return the bajra or the money to the petitioners from whose possession it was admittedly seized. According to the learned counsel the petitioners had filed various documents to prove that the bajra seized from them was purchased by them from various persons and was in no way concerned with any bajra alleged to have been illegally taken out from the go down of Keshri. Mar and as such the learned Magistrate should not have ordered for its confiscated rather should have allowed the claims of the petitioners.