Petitioner challenged confiscation of seized rice and subsequent criminal charges. Upon request to await trial court verdict for exoneration/restitution, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn.
Permission granted to withdraw the petition to await the verdict of the trial court.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4215 of 2021
======================================================
Pradeep Kumar S/o- Sri Yugeshwar Sah R/o- Village- Madhuban, Ward No1, P.S.- Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) Distt- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 02-11-2022
Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh for the State.
203 bags of unboiled rice belonging to the petitioner was seized and was confiscated by the District Magistrate. Against the aforesaid order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura which also was dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4215 of 2021 dt.02-11-2022 2/6
A truck was intercepted from which 203 bags of rice and 184 bags of wheat were recovered. The owner
and the driver of the vehicle claimed to be innocent as the vehicle was taken on hire for transportation of the foodgrains. It further appears from the records that the vehicle was heading towards Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea. The petitioner claimed the rice on the ground of his having purchased the same for trading. In support of the aforesaid contention, certain cash-memos were offered in evidence but those cash-memos were only with respect to purchase of paddy and not rice. The petitioner also furnished the GST license in the name of his wife to impress upon the authorities that the petitioner and his wife are carrying on their vocation of trading. It was in this context that it was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the confiscating authority as also the appellate court that in the absence of any control order governing the movement of rice and the petitioner not being a dealer under the PDS scheme and there being no clear evidence with respect to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4215 of 2021 dt.02-11-2022 3/6
the seized rice being subsidized rice, the District Magistrate completely misdirected himself in confiscating the same.
He has further submitted that the same grounds have been repeated by the appellate authority.
The sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner is that the rice is not covered under any Control Order; there is no evidence of the rice being a stolen property; the petitioner being a trader and no complaint from any quarter with respect to subsidized rice being diverted for the purposes of black marketing, and thus there could be no justification for seizure and confiscation.
It would also be relevant to note that on the recovery of rice and paddy, for which no explanation was offered at the time of seizure, a FIR was registered in Murli Ganj police station, against which charges have been framed against the petitioner after the submission of charge-sheet by the investigating agency.
Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State however has given countervailing arguments that it
Patna High Court CWJC No.4215 of 2021 dt.02-11-2022 4/6
matters not if the rice so seized is not covered under any Control Act but in the absence of any proof of purchase of
the same; rather proof of the same being subsidized rice because of its packing which was typical of a Government subsidized rice, any attempt at transferring the rice from one place to another would lead to only logical presumption that it was being taken to a destination for black marketing.
He further submits that with respect to purchase of paddy, evidence of purchase by way of cash-memo was furnished by the petitioner but nothing was shown by him regarding purchase of rice which was kept concealed under the bags of paddy.
These are two stark instances for the seizing authority as also the confiscating authority to come to a conclusion that it was not a mere transportation of foodgrains for trading but for black marketing of Government subsidized rice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4215 of 2021 dt.02-11-2022 5/6
Apart from this, it has been urged on behalf of the State that according to a Government Circular, the details of which have not been provided to this Court, in case of any attempt at diverting the food-grains, meant to be distributed amongst targeted beneficiaries under the Public Distribution scheme, such mis-adventure would come within the purview of the Essential Commodities Act, for breach of which, there could be a criminal case and the seized food-grains could be subjected to confiscation.
From the order of the confiscating authority as also of the appellate order, we find that there is no explanation whatsoever of the petitioner which could be taken as even a preliminary evidence of his having purchased the rice so seized and that the rice was found concealed in the vehicle which was intercepted and it was packed in bags which was typical of Government packing (the bags were found to be hand-stitched and stamped with the logo of FCI).
Patna High Court CWJC No.4215 of 2021 dt.02-11-2022 6/6
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, after having heard the observations of the
Bench all this while, makes a request to withdraw this application in order to await the verdict of the trial court with respect to the crime charge against him because if he
is exonerated of his charges, the trial court would only be justified in directing for restitution to the petitioner if not with the quantity of rice which was seized then with the prevailing market price of such commodity.
Acceding to such request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
krishna/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 07.11.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
Pradeep Kumar
State of Bihar through Collector, Madhepura
Ashutosh Kumar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
