Hirdai Narain Seth, Amitav Banerji, JJ. - (1.) ON 24th November, 1982, Controller of Molasses wrote to the petitioner that it had committed an offence by contravening the provisions of Sections 5(a), (b) and 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Nivantran Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and that the said offence could be compounded under the provisions of Section 16 of the Adhiniyam. He also required the petitioner to give its explanation and to State whether it wanted to compound the offence. The petitioner submitted an explanation and claimed that it was not, as claimed by the Controller, guilty of contravening the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam. After considering the explanation, the Controller took the view that prima facie the petitioner was guilty of contravening the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam. Even though while offering its explanation, the petitioner did not make any request for compounding the offence, the Controller directed that the offence could be compounded on payment of Rs. 5,000/ -. The Controller informed the petitioner accordingly and cautioned it that in case it did not pay the composition fees, appropriate action in accordance with. law would be taken. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The factual position that, therefore, emerges is that whereas the Controller is of opinion that the petitioner is guilty of committing offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam and that he is (prepared to compound the same on payment of Rs. 5,000/ - as composition fees, the petitioner sticks to its stand that it is not guilty and that at this stage it is not interested in making request for composition of any offence.
(2.) SECTION 16 of the Adhiniyam runs thus - - The Controller may accept from any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence punishable under this Act, a sum of money not exceeding five thousand rupees by way of composition for the offence which may have been committed and in all cases in which any property has been seized as liable to forfeiture under this Act, may release the same on payment of value thereof as estimated by him. On payment of such sum of money or value or both, as the case may be, to the Controller, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged and the property seized shall be released and no further proceeding shall be taken against such person or property. Clear implication of the section is that an occasion for considering whether an offence for contravention of any provision of the Adhiniyam can be compounded arises only at the stage when the accused is prepared to own the offence and makes a request for its composition. The Controller cannot unilaterally thrust composition of an offence on the accused. The Adhiniyam does not authorize the Controller to initiate proceedings for recovering the amount indicated by him in his offer for compounding the offence. Only course open to the controller in such cases is to move a criminal Court for appropriate action. It will then be for the criminal Court to determine whether or not the petitioner is guilty of committing any offence and to deal with it accordingly. Suffice it to say that the offer for composition of offence made by the Controller has, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner, become infructuous and futile. As the petitioner has failed to show that the impugned order affects its right, there is no question of issuing any writ in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 116 of the Constitution. This petition, therefore, fails and is rejected.;