High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Binda Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 28 January, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Binda Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 28 January, 2011
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     CWJC No.12618 of 2009
                                           BINDA SAH .
                                             Versus
                                    THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR .
                                          -----------

4. 28.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Counsel for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2009 in Misc.

Case No. 5 of 2007-2008 directing confiscation of 55 bags of wheat and

15 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kilograms.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that rice and wheat

are otherwise free sale commodities. There is no material in the FIR

that the food grains seized were of the nature and quality sold through

the Public Distribution System only. The mere fact that charge sheet

may have been submitted without any discussion in the impugned order

of the satisfaction during investigation that the food grains were of a

nature and quality sold through the Public Distribution System, there

was no justification for confiscation.

Learned Counsel for the State from the impugned order is

unable to demonstrate the satisfaction of the Court that there is any

discussion of the nature and quality of the food grains in the charge

sheet based on which confiscation has been ordered.

In order to invoke powers of confiscation under Section 6A of the

Essential Commodities Act there has to be a satisfaction that the food

grains constitute an essential commodity. To constitute an essential

commodity the food grain had necessarily to be of a nature sold through

the Public Distribution System only as otherwise the food grains in

questions were free sale commodities. In absence of any identification

that the food grains were of a nature and quality sold through the Public

Distribution System only and discussion of the satisfaction in the
impugned order, the impugned order suffers from gross non-application

of mind when it treats submission of a charge sheet only as sufficient to

direct confiscation. The charge sheet at best is an expression of an

inconclusive opinion and cannot be given a conclusive attire.

The impugned order dated 10.7.2009 is set aside. If the food

grains have been sold in pursuance of confiscation the petitioner is

entitled to be paid costs thereof in accordance with law within a

maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or

presentation of a copy of this order.

The writ application stands allowed.

Snkumar/-                                            (Navin Sinha,J.)