HARRIES,C.J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for revision of orders made by a learned Magistrate and a learned Sessions Judge confiscating certain flour.
(2.) IT appears that a motor truck carrying flour was held up on the border of the district of Burdwan. It was suggested by the prosecution that a consignment was being imported into Bihar in contravention of the Bengal Food -grains Movement Control Order. Proceedings were commenced against two persons, namely, the person who claimed to be the owner of the flour and the driver of the motor truck in which the flour was found. The owner of the flour was discharged as no case whatsoever could be made out against him. The driver of the truck was tried and after a full hearing he was found not guilty and acquitted. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution failed to establish any offence in connection with this flour. Though no offence had been established the learned Magistrate who tried the driver ordered the flour to be confiscated. The learned Sessions Judge was moved in revision, but in his view the order of confiscation was properly made and he refused to refer the matter to the High Court. A petition has now been preferred to challenge these orders. Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutt has contended that no order of confiscation could be made except where it was found that the Order and the Essential Supplies Act under which such Orders were made had been contravened. The acquittal of the driver and the discharge of the owner clearly established, according to Mr. Dutt, that there had been no contravention whatsoever of the Order. That being so, he argued that the Court had no power to order confiscation of the flour in question.
(3.) MR . Banerjea on behalf of the State has urged that the flour could have been confiscated though no offence in relation to it had been committed. It is urged that even if a person innocently moves flour from one district to another or from one. province to another contrary to these Foodgrains Control Orders nevertheless the commodity can be confiscated though no offence has been committed. According to Mr. Banerjea what constitutes a contravention of the Food -grains Movement Control Order is the moving of the goods, not the moving of the goods with such intent as to make the movement an offence against these orders. If Mr. Banerjea's argument was sound extraordinary results would follow. For example, if a person, without any intention whatsoever of proceeding from one district to another, by mischance takes a wrong road finds that he has crossed the border of his district or province which he never intended to do, the goods which he carried, if their import into another district or province was prohibited, could according to Mr. Banerjea be confiscated though the person who inadvertently crossed the border and took the goods across the border was not guilty of any offence whatsoever.;