In a writ petition, the writer quashed an order directing recovery of a bond amount. The court held that the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case rendered the confiscation order a nullity, making recovery unlawful under Section 6-A.
The order dated 11.11.2013 directing realisation of the bond amount was quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1559 of 2014
Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, S/o Bhagwan Prasad Gupta, R/o Kehalgaon, P.O. & P.S.- Kehalgaon, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar) … … Petitioner
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, at P.O. + P.S. & District- Dumka.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, at P.O. + P.S. & District- Dumka.
4. Block Supply Officer, Saraiyahat, at P.O. & P.S.Saraiyahat, District- Dumka. ... … Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sweta Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. B.B. Sinha, G.A. II Mr. Saket, A.C. to G.A. II
05/21.08.2019 Heard Ms. Sweta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned G.A. II, for the respondents.
In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent no. 2) in Confiscation Case No. 1/94-95, by which the Block Supply Officer, Saraiyahat has been directed to realise the amount of Bond executed by the petitioner.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case in terms of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act the Bond amount could not be realised from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Confiscation Case was instituted in the year 1994-95 and the final order of confiscation was passed on 11.11.2013. During the pendency of the confiscation proceeding by an interim order the foodgrains in question were already released in favour of the petitioner and in such circumstances the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
-2-
Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned G.A. II, for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner was found violating the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and therefore the respondent no. 2 has rightly confiscated the articles.
The factual aspects of the case as per the writ application reveal that the petitioner is having PDS License being License No. 12/88 in Saraiyahat Block of DistrictDumka and he was a stockist for sugar. The confiscation proceeding was initiated by the respondent no. 2 vide Confiscation Case No. 1/94-95. The basis for initiation of the confiscation proceeding was seizure of 64.30 quintals of sugar from the shop of the petitioner. During the pendency of the confiscating proceeding vide order dated 09.09.1994 pursuant to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6065/94 the seized sugar was released upon execution of a Bond of Rs. 70,000/-. After a considerable length of time on 11.11.2013 an order was passed by the respondent no. 2 in which a direction was given to the Block Supply Officer, Saraiyahat to realise the amount of Bond executed by the petitioner and if the recovery is not made steps be taken by filing a Certificate Case.
The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in which it has been stated that in the criminal case which was instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act being Special Case No. 05/1994 the petitioner has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 27.02.2006 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.
It therefore appears that the basis for institution of the Confiscation Case was the seizure of a huge quantity of sugar for which a separate case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was also instituted. Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act deals with confiscation of
-3-
essential commodities and sub-section 5 reads as follows:
(5) Where any essential commodity is sold as aforesaid the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of all expenses of the sale or auction, as the case may be, shall-
(a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector; or
(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-clause (1) of Section 6-C so requires; or
(c) in the case of prosecution being instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section and where the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized:
Provided that in the case of foodgrains sold through fair price shops in accordance with sub-sections (2) and (3) the owner shall be paid for the foodgrains so sold, the price fixed by the State Government, for retail sale of such foodgrains through such shops less all expenses of sale or auction under subsections (2) and (3).
From a perusal of sub-section 5 of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act it therefore appears that if an essential commodity is sold and in case of acquittal of the persons concerned the sale proceeds shall be handed over to the said person.
In the present case as has been stated above during the pendency of the confiscation case pursuant to an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6065/94 the seized sugar was released in favour of the petitioner on executing a Bond of Rs. 70,000/-. Once the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case under Section 6-A (5) of the Essential Commodities Act the respondent no. 2 cannot take any steps for recovery of the amount for which the Bond had been executed or for a direction to initiate a Certificate Proceeding. The acquittal of the petitioner in the case instituted under Section 7 of the Essential
-4-
Commodities Act automatically brings the order of confiscation to a nullity.
In view of what has been stated above, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent no. 2) in Confiscation Case No. 1/94-95 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
This application stands allowed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quashing of a recovery order is warranted when the petitioner was acquitted in the related criminal prosecution under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjeet Kumar Gupta
State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka
Block Supply Officer, Saraiyahat
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
