VIJAY PRASAD @ VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 11.06.2009 in Confiscation Case No. 72 of 2008, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, a First Information Report being Chauparan P.S. Case No. 194 of 2008 was registered on 05.10.2008 under Sections 409/413/414/421/34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The case revealed against the petitioner in the First Information Report is that, on a secret information a raid was conducted and 73 bags of wheat weighing about 32.8 quintals and rice weighing about 92.70 quintals were found concealed under a Tarpaulin (Tripal) in the premises of the petitioner. The bags bore the seal of Food Corporation of India (FCI). During the raid no document with respect to purchase of the foodgrains was produced and therefore, the aforesaid foodgrains were seized in presence of independent witnesses. In the First Information Report it is alleged that the petitioner kept the foodgrains for blackmarketing. Confiscation Case No. 72 of 2008 was also initiated and a notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act was issued to the petitioner on 19.11.2008. The petitioner submitted his reply to the showcause notice however, vide order dated 11.06.2009, the articles seized from the premises of the petitioner were confiscated by the Authorised OfficerDeputy Commissioner. Challenging order dated 11.06.2009 and seeking quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of Confiscation Case No. 72 of 2008, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that in his showcause reply the petitioner stated that he purchased the foodgrains from Maha Lakshmi Traders whereas, the challans produced by the petitioner disclosed that the licence was issued in the name of Ganpati Traders. No evidence of sale and purchase was produced by the licence holder. It is stated that the foodgrains were stored by the petitioner for blackmarketing and thus, the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction over the matter.