M.K.Mittal - (1.) -This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 15.10.07, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1108/07 (Annexure-6) and 18.9.07 (Annexure-5) passed in Case Crime No. 261/07. Learned C.J.M., Basti rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release of 300 bags of rice and by order dated 15.10.07 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision filed against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that she is the owner of rice-mill and has a licence for production of rice. Its licence number is 2 MASKNWA/02 and she has also a licence for sale of dal and dalhan with No. 361 Maskana/02. THE petitioner runs a rice mill in the name and style of Hind Agro Industries, Babhanan Maskanwa, district Gonda. On 29.7.07 three hundred bags containing 150 quintals of rice were loaded in truck No. U. P. 85/8265 for sale in the open market through Manish Trading Company, Naveen Mandi Sthal, Gonda and form 9-R, bills, gate pass were duly prepared and issued as per rules. THE petitioner was required to pay 60% levy charge to the State Government and as per stock register the firm had given 60% to the levy charge of the State Government and thereafter, 150 quintals were to be sold in the market. When the truck was carrying these bags it was seized by respondent No. 2, Ram Nayan, who was then Incharge, Zila Khadya Vitran Adhikari. THE truck was taken to the police station. At the time it was seized, illegal demand was made but the driver refused and thereafter the truck driver was also challaned under Section 3/7 E. C. Act. This rice belongs to the petitioner and was brought from her rice mill and was being taken for sale to Manish Trading Company. THE petitioner also has a machine for stitching the bags and he also used to purchase old bags and builti threads. The petitioner filed an application for release of these bags and rice but learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that investigation was pending in the case and that report for confiscation under Section 6A of the E.C. Act had been sent to the District Magistrate. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on the ground that the rice was being transported against the provisions of E.C. Act and as per the statement of the truck driver, the rice was brought from mal godam near village Didwa at Shiva Ghat road. Learned Sessions Judge also held that the matter had been referred to the District Magistrate for confiscation under Section 6A of the E. C. Act. Consequently, he dismissed the revision. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. In this case the State of U. P. filed a counter-affidavit wherein it has been alleged that this rice was of the Antyoday Scheme and was meant for public distribution. The report was lodged in the matter after obtaining consent from the District Magistrate. It is wrong to say that any gratification was demanded by the seizure officer/ respondent No. 2 or any police personnel. The petitioner has no licence for public distribution scheme. The release application has rightly been rejected by the Magistrate and the revision has also rightly been dismissed. The report of confiscation had been submitted to the District Magistrate. The impugned orders do not need any interference.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is owner of this seized rice and it should have been directed to be released in her favour but learned lower courts have erred in refusing to release on the ground that the matter for confiscation of the rice under Section 6A of the E.C. Act has been referred to the District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as yet no confiscation order has been passed in the matter. He also submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill and has a licence to produce the rice and it was produced in her mill and as per the rules, it was being sent for sale. As against it the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that this rice belongs to the Antyoday Scheme and was meant for public distribution and was being transported from godam near village Didva for black-marketing and was rightly seized. Section 457, Cr. P.C. provides that whenever seizure of property by any police officer is reported to the Magistrate under provision of this Code and such property is not produced before a criminal court during an enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of the said property or delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. Therefore, if any property is seized and the trial or enquiry is pending, the Magistrate can order for disposal of the property and order for delivery to the person entitled thereof and if such person cannot be ascertained, the Magistrate can direct for custody and production of such property. In the instant case, the petitioner has been claiming herself to be the owner of the seized rice.;