- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.8.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Chatra, in Confiscation Case No. 62 of 2006 | 60 of 2007, whereby, the truck of the petitioner bearing Registration No. UP-83-9417, which was found transporting rice, was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the truck of the petitioner was seized in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case no. 52 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 670 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as the truck of the petitioner was found loaded with bags of rice of Food Corporation of India. It is submitted that though in the impugned order, it is not mentioned the case, in which the truck of the petitioner has been confiscated, but the impugned order clearly shows that the truck was confiscated as it was carrying rice. Learned counsel submitted that as such, the confiscation was made under Section 6 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also submitted that for confiscation of the truck of the petitioner under Section 6 (a) of the Essential Committees Act, offence under Section 7 of the said Act for violation of any control order under Section 3 is mandatory. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Chatra, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it does not mention of violation of any control order under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also submitted that there is no control order in force with respect to rice. Learned counsel for the State, on other hand, opposed the prayer submitting that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy against the impugned order.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the law, inasmuch, as no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as there is no allegation of any violation of any control order in the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order does not speak of any offence for which the truck of the petitioner was confiscated. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Chatra, is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the confiscation order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Chatra, in Confiscation Case No. 62 of 2006 | 60 of 2007 is hereby, quashed and the vehicle is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner, if he satisfies the concerned authority that he is the rightful owner of the said vehicle.;