AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Prasad, J.
This is a criminal revision against the order dated 24th June, 1992 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Farrukhabad in Miscellaneous Case No. Nil of 1991, State v. Govind Prasad Ram Lal, rejecting its application for releasing the goods seized by the police on 28th January, 1992 in Crime No. 66 of 1992 under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, police station Kotwali, Farrukhabad.
The commodity in question was seized mainly on the grounds inter alia that it was stored in a godown other than the licenced godown and that there was no entry in the stock register regarding the same.
The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist was not given time upto 48 hours from the time of the seizure of the commodity td explain why the revisionist had to store it in the godown other than its licenced godown. His contention finds support from the very licence of the revisionist.
The learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the commodity was seized at about 10.30 p.m. and therefore the question of the same being entered in the stock register before the said time does not arise. His contention has substance.
From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Special Judge has rejected the application on the assumption that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. This Court has in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. nil of 1992, Krishna Kant and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, observed inter alia as under:
"The petitioners may approach to the Special Judge concerned for the release of the goods seized. In case an application is made before the Special Judge, it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law and on merits."
The learned Special Judge appears to have glossed over the above observations/ directions of this Court.
In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The seized commodity as mentioned in the First Information Report is ordered to be released in favour of the revisionist on its furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousands) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.''J. M. concerned.
Revision allowed.