BINOD SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Collector -cum - District Magistrate, Bokaro in Confiscation Case No.25 of 2008 whereby and whereunder 80 bags of rice measuring 40 quintals recovered from the house of the petitioner was confiscated.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that on 26.4.2008, when a secret information was received that 80 bags of rice, meant for distribution to the card holders by the dealer Raj Kumar Sao, has been kept in the house of this petitioner, the informant Block Development Officer and other officials raided the house of the petitioner and recovered 80 bags of rice. Upon which, a case was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereupon, the District Magistrate, Bokaro on receipt of the report, sent by the Sub -divisional Officer, Bermo at Tenughat initiated a proceeding under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act for confiscating 80 bags of rice seized from the house of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner and the said accused Raj Kumar Sao, a dealer under Public Distribution System to show cause as to why not the said rice be confiscated. Pursuant to that, show cause was submitted by the petitioner stating therein that no offence under the Essential Commodities Act is made out as having possession of 80 bags of rice is not an offence under the Essential Commodities Act as on the day when the raid was laid, no order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to prohibition of sale, purchase or stock etc. of rice was in force and as such, initiation of confiscation proceeding is itself bad. At the same time, other accused the Dealer, also submitted his show cause stating therein that without making any verification of the stock of the shop, it has been alleged that, the rice which has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, belongs to him and as such, it is only the surmises and conjecture on the part of the prosecuting agency to say that the said rice belongs to him.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that after the lodgment of the case, it was investigated upon and the Investigating Officer after collecting evidences submitted charge sheet after finding the allegation to be true that the rice belongs to Public Distribution System Dealer, Raj Kumar Sao, who had kept it with the petitioner.