Paramdeep Singh and Others vs State and Others

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge

Order No. DMS/Jud/Misc/318/2011 dated 24.5.2011, issued by respondent No. 3 is sought to be quashed.

The Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner) on the basis of application filed by SHO P/S Sadder has invoked power u/s 6-A of Essential

Commodities Act so has ordered confiscation of two trucks bearing registration Nos. JK02AE-2499, JK02L-5229 and same were directed to be

handed over to General Manager (Opr) SRTC for using the same for public purpose.

Police Station, Sadder during Naka checking on 18.2.2011 intercepted two trucks bearing No. JK02L-5229 and JK02AE-2499 loaded with

sugar 92.05 quintals and 93.46 quintals respectively when they were on way to Jahangir Chowk from Hyderpora. The sugar was loaded from FCI

Railway, Jammu for FCI Baramulla. In a hatched conspiracy with FCI employees of Jammu/Baramulla and CAPD, the said sugar was being sold

(misappropriated) through truck drivers. On this basis, case FIR No. 31/2011 under Sections 420, 406, 409, 418, 471 RPC and 3/7 EC Act was

registered. Number plates of two trucks allegedly after crossing Lower Munda check post were replaced by numbers plates i.e. 5299-JK02L and

2499-JK02AE. During investigation fabricated challans and number plates were allegedly recovered.

During the proceedings before the Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner), the petitioners projected that in fact there was some business

rivalry pursuant to which this case has been cooked up. Basically sugar was loaded from FCI Jammu in four vehicles bearing registration Nos.

JK02AE-2499, JK02L-5229, JK02AE-3329 and JK02L-5429 out of which two truck loads were for FCI Srinagar and another two were for

FCI Baramulla. The four vehicles though had left from Jammu on different dates but due to closure of road all the trucks met at Pantha Chowk.

The two trucks which moved towards Srinagar carried the challans of other two trucks and were on way for unloading sugar at proper destination

but on way were intercepted.

This theory has not been accepted by the Collector (respondent No. 3) who has concluded that the vehicles were being used for

misappropriation of essential commodities (sugar) so directed confiscation of truck Nos. JK02AE-2499 and JK02L-5229.

The first contention as was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector (respondent No. 3) had no jurisdiction to initiate

confiscation proceedings. It is only when an order is issued u/s 3 of the EC Act, on breach thereof Section 6-A of EC Act will apply, no such

order was in operation, therefore, Collector (respondent No. 3) had no jurisdiction to pass the order of confiscation.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents was pointedly asked if there was any such order issued u/s 3 of the EC Act, he sought time for

collection of record so as to ascertain whether there was any such order in force. Case was adjourned but after collection of records learned

counsel submitted that he could not ascertain from the records as to whether any such order was issued u/s 3 of the EC Act. He has produced the

records but from the records it is not discernible that any such order u/s 3 was issued. It being so, the Collector (respondent No. 3) could not

invoke the powers u/s 6-A of the EC Act For facility of reference, Section 6-A is reproduced hereunder:-

6A. Confiscation of essential commodity: (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made u/s 3 in relation thereto, a

report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential

commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient

so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that' there has been a

contravention of the order, may order confiscation of:

(a) the essential commodity so seized;

(b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity.

Plain wording of the Section is clear that when an order is issued u/s 3 of the EC Act, it is only then on breach thereof proceedings u/s 6-A of

the Act can be initiated. It being so, the confiscation order is found to have been passed without jurisdiction, therefore, is quashed.

The vehicles admittedly were seized by the police, same shall be handed over to the police for being dealt with under the provisions of Code of

Criminal Procedure and the petitioners shall be at liberty to have recourse to the available measures for release thereof from the Court of

competent jurisdiction. The Investigating Officer shall also collect information from General Manager (Oprs) SRTC as to how much revenue has

been earned from the date of confiscation and handing over of the vehicles to him and then it shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate

measures for getting such profits as earned from the plying of such vehicles, as shall be permissible under rules.

This petition is allowed. Order impugned passed by the Collector (respondent No. 3) is set aside.

The record as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents be returned to him.