RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have challenged the seizure list dated 17.6.2000, whereby and whereunder, the opposite party No. 2 has been pleased to seize the truck No. WMH -844 loaded with rice weighing 120 quintals with further prayer to release the said trucks and articles and also to pay the compensation to the petitioners. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that the proprietor of petitioner No. 1, firm has died and hence the name of petitioner No. 1 may be deleted. In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is being restricted to petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4. It has been further stated in the supplementary affidavit that the entire criminal proceedings be also allowed to be challenged by the petitioners. However, no separate application with respect to amendment in the prayer portion of the main application has been filed. The lower court record, which had been called for at the time when this application was admitted on 6.11.2000, has been received very recently and perusal of the same reveals that on 20.4.2013 cognizance has been taken for the offence u/s 420/466/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act).
(3.) THE prosecution story is that the petitioner No. 2 along with proprietor of Ganesh Bhandar (since deceased) had purchased 120 quintals of rice from one Sapan Kumar Ghosh of Burdwan District and the said commodity was loaded on a truck bearing registration No. WMH -844 and a road permit for carrying the goods was also issued. However, when the articles reached near Govindpur, Dhanbad, the sales tax authorities on finding some mistake in the road permit, issued a show cause notice to the driver of the truck and pursuant to the show cause notice a demand was raised and a penalty was imposed which had already been deposited. After deposit of the penalty, the sale tax authorities had ordered to release the vehicle along with articles on 16.6.2000. However, on 17.2.2000, the opposite party No. 2 is alleged to have seized the said truck with the commodities loaded on it and copy of the seizure list was also given. This seizure list is under challenge in this present application because it has been averred by the petitioners that in spite of best efforts, they could not detect any First Information Report (F.I.R.) instituted against them. On account of the said submission, the lower court record was perused from which it appears that an F.I.R. being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 361 of 2000 was instituted and which was received by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Dhanbad on 29.6.2000. It thus appears that for the alleged offence, the F.I.R. was instituted and the seizure of the vehicles along with the goods were made. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the seizure is bad and illegal in view of the fact that at the relevant point of time there was no storage limit for rice. In this context he has referred to the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Barnwal v. State of Bihar and Others, 2002 2 JCR 203. He has further stated that on account of some mistake in the road permit, the sales tax authorities had issued a show cause and also imposed a penalty which was deposited and thereafter the truck was released. He has also submitted that the entire allegation is with respect to the black marketing in which the petitioners were alleged to be indulged, while transporting the rice.;