Munna Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4714 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED   
 
A.F.R.        
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6423 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Munna Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Jai Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to question an order of Mr. Ehsanullah Khan, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur dated 05.09.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2017, under Section 6-C of The Essential Commodities Act, 19551, dismissing the said appeal and affirming an order of Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, the then Collector, Shahjahanpur, ordering confiscation of the petitioner's tractor along with its trolley, under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, with an option to pay in lieu of confiscation.

2. The facts that give rise to the present petition are these :

According to the State, on 11.09.2016 at 11 O' Clock in the night, a tractor of Sonalika make, blue in colour, bearing Registration No. UP 27 Y 1676, along with a trolley, was carrying 41 bags full of rice. The tractor belonged to the petitioner, Munna Singh. The tractor was being followed by a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. UP 27 AB 6557, which had, for its occupants, Jagdish Singh and Surendra Singh. It is said that these two men were owners of the bulk of rice being carried on the tractor trolley. This tractor was apprehended by one Vishram Singh, and information was sent to Police Station - Paraur, District - Shahjahanpur. A police party arrived and took away the tractor, its trolley and the consignment of rice to the police station. Information was also given over telephone to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad. Thereafter, the Supply Inspector, together with the Naib Tehsildar, came over to Village Khajuri and recorded the statement of the tractor owner, Munna Singh. Munna Singh apparently acknowledged the ownership of the tractor. It was revealed that one Rajnish, a native of the village, who runs a grocer's shop, had hired the tractor and the trolley, that was apprehended with the consignment of rice. Jagdish Singh, on the other hand, was ascertained to be a Fair Price Shop dealer. The Supply Inspector and the Naib Tehsildar undertook a joint inspection of Jagdish Singh's Fair Price Shop located in Village Dari. Jagdish Singh was not found there. His wife laid the shop open, where the two officials found seven bags of wheat, three bags of rice and 20 kilograms of loose sugar. These commodities were not shown in the stock register.

3. On discovery of the aforesaid facts, a case was registered against Jagdish Singh and Surendra Singh on the basis of a First Information Report2 lodged by Rameshwar Dayal, Supply Inspector, Jalalabad, as Case Crime No. 413 of 2016, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station - Paraur, District - Shahjahanpur. Post registration of the crime, the Station House Officer, Police Station - Paraur, moved the Collector under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, asking that the petitioner's Tractor and the Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. UP 27 AB 6557, be confiscated in favour of the State, on ground that these were involved in carrying an essential commodity i.e. controlled rice, in contravention of control orders issued under the Act of 1955. The aforesaid report to the Collector was made by the Station House Officer, Police Station - Paraur vide Memo No. 9/16 dated 16.12.2016. The Collector, Shahjahanpur issued a notice dated 26.04.2017 to the petitioner, amongst others, requiring him to show cause against the proposed confiscation.

4. The petitioner submitted his objections to the show cause, being objections dated 03.05.2017. He said in those objections that his vehicle has been shown involved in the crime falsely. It was urged that the petitioner had no criminal history, involving the vehicle or otherwise, and that he was not a previous convict. The tractor, together with the trolley, was financed by a certain Magma Finance Limited, and that the petitioner had to pay Equated Monthly Installments that he had been regularly paying up to the month of July, 2016. He said that the schedule of repayment would also go awry, once his tractor had been seized. The tractor was also insured by Magma HDI General Insurance Company, but due to seizure of the tractor, the petitioner would not be able to pay the due premia. The tractor was particularly important to the petitioner in his agricultural operations for tilling and harvesting. It was specifically said in Paragraph No. 5 of the objection that his tractor had no connection, whatsoever, to the consignment of rice, that was apprehended on 11.09.2016 at 11 O' Clock in the night. He referred to a certain G.D. Entry No. 23 dated 20.09.2016, that bore no reference to the recovery or the recovery memo about the petitioner's tractor and trolley. It was also said that the Supply Inspector and the Investigating Officer had taken his signatures on blank papers, which were utilized to record statements falsely attributed to him. It was emphasized that there was no evidence about recovery of the incriminating essential commodity from the petitioner's tractor and trolley. It was, amongst others, particularly said in the objections that the failure to draw a recovery memo was a red pointer to the ante-timed action that was taken, and was a fact that could not be ignored. The petitioner's tractor was taken away much later by the Police from his house, where it was parked. It is said in Paragraph No. 11 of the objections that 41 bags of controlled rice were seized from some other trader that have been connected to Jagdish and the other co-accused, including the petitioner. It was also said that in order to prevent the tractor from rotting at the police station, it was but appropriate that it may be given into the petitioner's custody, as he was the registered owner thereof. It was undertaken that the petitioner would not transfer or alter or damage the tractor in question and produce it, as and when required physically.

5. The District Magistrate, after considering the petitioner's objections vide order dated 05.06.2017, ordered confiscation of his tractor in favour of the State. The Collector further ordered that the petitioner had an option to pay a sum of Rs. 4,61,700/- in lieu of confiscation and take back the tractor. The petitioner challenged the Collector's order, by an appeal under Section 6C of the Act of 1955 carried to the learned District Judge. The appeal was numbered on the file of the learned District Judge as Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2017. It was assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2017.

6. Aggrieved, this revision has been preferred.

7. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

8. The Authorities below have relied upon the report submitted by the Police to accept for a fact that the petitioner's tractor and trolley was carrying 41 bags of rice, that were taken away from the Public Distribution System surreptitiously by Jagdish Singh, a Fair Price Shop Dealer. The vehicle was apprehended, while it was ferrying the controlled commodity to a grocer's shop. The Collector has also accepted for a fact that the Maruti Van that was trailing the tractor carrying the consignment of rice, had, for its occupants, Jagdish Singh, the Fair Price Shop dealer and another Surendra Singh. The Collector concluded that the Maruti Van was being used to keep vigil over movement of the tractor trolley. The presence of the Fair Price Shop dealer has been regarded by the Collector as an added circumstance to show the incriminatory character of the consignment carried in the tractor trolley. It has also been held that the petitioner failed to show that his vehicle was used in the offending operation, despite due care and caution observed by him. Ex hypothesi, the tractor and the trolley in question owned by the petitioner was held carrying the consignment of a controlled commodity unauthorisedly, and in contravention of the control order. The Collector has ordered confiscation of the petitioner's tractor and the trolley, in exercise of powers under Section 6A(1)(c) of the Act of 1955. The learned Judge has broadly written findings of affirmation with not much of a notable addition to the content of the reasoning, except the finesse of better diction coming to him from his forensic training, which the Collector did not have.

9. Before this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on a release application dated 04.01.2017, that was moved before the Collector, asking for release of the tractor in question, urging a case more or less on the lines set out in the objections filed in response to the show-cause notice under Section 6A(1) of the Act of 1955. Interestingly, it is averred in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition that vide order dated 05.06.2017, the Collector had released the tractor in favour of the petitioner, with a direction to deposit cash in the sum of Rs. 4,61,700/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has virtually urged before this Court that the condition circumscribing the release with the requirement of a cash deposit of Rs. 4,61,700/- was too onerous to be imposed upon the registered owner of a vehicle. Learned counsel has relied on the provision of Section 452(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 to say that the delivery of property, subject matter of a crime, to any person entitled to its possession, can be ordered by the Magistrate to be given to that person, upon executing a bond, with or without sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. On the equities of the case, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor farmer, aged about 60 years. He is ready to execute a bond, along with sureties to the satisfaction of the Collector. In fact, there is a recital to the last mentioned effect made in Paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition.

10. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel on the fact that he is the registered owner of the tractor, and is, therefore, entitled to its possession, pending outcome of the criminal case. Though no counter affidavit has been filed in opposition to the writ petition, the impugned orders, for all their worth, set against the petitioner's case in the writ petition, impugning them, are to be judged valid or vitiated. To the understanding of this Court, the petitioner's case for release of his tractor, pending decision of the criminal case based on the FIR, by resort to proceedings under Section 452 of the Code or for that matter, Section 451 or Section 457, is based on a gross misconception. The petitioner's tractor is not being held as case property, pending decision of the Trial Court, in the criminal case that has originated from Crime No. 413 of 2006, under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955, Police Station - Paraur, District - Shahjahanpur. The petitioner's tractor has, in fact, been confiscated in favour of the State by the Collector, in proceedings under Section 6-A(1) and is now State property. What the petitioner thinks as an onerous condition for the release of his tractor imposed by the Collector, asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,61,700/- is no condition for release. That is, in fact, an option given by the Collector to the petitioner, being the owner of the confiscated tractor and trolley, to pay its market price in lieu of confiscation. The nature of the order passed by the Collector and its consequences have been completely misunderstood by the petitioner, which is vivid from his pleadings in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, that read :

That on 05.06.2017 the learned respondent No. 2 has released the Tractor in favour of the petitioner with the direction to deposit Cash amount of Rs. 4,61,700/-.

11. This Court is seized of the matter in a jurisdiction that is essentially equitable. Therefore, even if the petitioner has assailed the orders impugned on the basis of a flawed understanding about the nature of the proceedings relating to those orders, this Court considers it imperative to examine the validity of those orders on the parameters of the Statute under which these have been made. This course this Court all the more chooses, because the orders impugned are purely confiscatory, and therefore, have to be strictly examined to ensure that these have been made in accordance with the Statute. Section 6A(1) of the Act of 1955 is extracted below :

6A Confiscation of essential commodity:-[(1)] Where any 10 [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, 11 [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such 10 [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector 12 [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order 13 [may order confiscation of--

(a) the essential commodity so seized;

(b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:]

Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section:

Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

12. Section 6-B of the Act of 1955 reads :

6B. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of foodgrains, etc.-(1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the person from whom it is seized--

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance;

(b) is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and

(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

(3) No order confiscating any essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section (l), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with.

STATE AMENDMENT

Uttar Pradesh.--After section 6B, insert the following section, namely:--

"6BB. Review.--(1) Where the Collector is satisfied that an order of confiscation or an order refusing confiscation made under section 6A suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record (including any mistake of law) he may within one month of such order issue notice to the owner of the essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, or, as the case may be, the person from whom it was seized, to show cause why that order should not be reviewed, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order on review as he thinks fit.

(2) The provisions of sections 6C and 6D shall apply in relation to an order passed originally under Section 6A."

13. It is evident that proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle used in the transportation of an essential commodity in breach of a Control Order, taken under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 are quite independent and different from a prosecution before the Court trying the offence founded on the same contravention under Section 7 of the Act under reference. Here, this Court, for the present, is not concerned with the jurisdiction of the Court trying the offence to order confiscation of the vehicle carrying a commodity in contravention of an order issued under the Act of 1955. The Collector has chosen to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A, which have been taken to their logical conclusion, ending in an order of confiscation. The power vested in the Collector to confiscate a vehicle, alleged to be involved in carrying an essential commodity in violation of a control order, makes it imperative for the Collector to serve a notice in writing upon the owner of the vehicle or the person from whom it has been seized, informing him of the grounds on which the Authority proposes to confiscate the vehicle. Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) requires the provision of an opportunity to the owner of the vehicle or the person from whom it is seized, to make a representation in writing, within a reasonable time, to be indicated in the notice against the proposed confiscation. The last procedural requirement under Section 6-B is carried in Clause (c) of sub-Section (1), which mandates that a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter be afforded. Broadly, these conditions have been fulfilled by the Collector before passing the order impugned. But, what sub-Section (2) of Section 6-B of the Act of 1955 requires is virtually the existence of mens rea of the specific kind postulated by the Statute before an order of confiscation can be validly made. Sub-Section (2) of Section 6-B requires that no order of confiscation of a vehicle can be made under Section 6-A, if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that the vehicle used in transportation of the offending commodity was so employed without his knowledge or connivance, or that of his agent or any person in-charge of the vehicle and further that all reasonable and necessary precautions against such offending use had been taken. This clause seems to put the entire burden on the owner of the vehicle about showing the absence of mens rea. But the way it has come to be interpreted, mens rea is an essential prerequisite for the passing of an order of confiscation under Section 6-A. The Collector is required to enter a specific finding about it. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of Orissa High Court in M/s. Shri Laxmi Trading Co. and Another v. The Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies Section), Rourkela and Another4. In Shri Laxmi Trading Co. (supra) it was held :

16. Coming now to the second question as to whether "mens rea" is an essential precondition for passing an order of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, Mr. Patnaik, the, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that confiscation is undoubtedly penal in nature and, therefore, to attract the said provision, it must be established that the violation was intentional and was made with criminal intention. In the case of Madhav Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Cri LJ 1800, a Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the question of requirement of mens rea under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. It was held by their Lordships:--

"If this is the law, which is already laid down, so far as S. 7 is concerned, and if the provisions of S. 6-A are in pari materia with the provisions of S. 7, we see no reason why the element of mens rea should not form part of the breach of the rules alleged under S. 6-A. The act which constitutes the basis of prosecution as well as the basis of an Order, an adjudication and confiscation being the same, it cannot have a different content under S. 6-A and S. 7 of the same Act...."

17. In the case of Mewalal Kapildeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1978 Cri LJ 873, a Bench of the Patna High Court also considered the same question and held:--

"....Therefore, for confiscation as well as for conviction it must be established that the person concerned has contravened any order made under S. 3. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that a word occurring in the same Act is usually to be given the same meaning unless a different intention is expressed by the provisions of the Act. As such, the word ''contravention' has to be interpreted in S. 6-A and in S. 7 to mean that the provision of any order framed under S. 3 of the Act has been contravened intentionally. On the other hand, if it is found that the contravention was unintentional and the person concerned had taken all reasonable care and was carrying on the business in a bona fide manner, then, in my view, even for S. 6-A of the Act, it has to be interpreted that in the eye of law there has been no contravention so as to visit the dealer with the consequences of confiscating the articles which had been seized...."

18. A learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P., 1984 All LJ 876, also considered the question of mens rea vis-a-vis S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and held:--

"In order to attract the operation of S. 6-A, Essential Commodities Act, aforesaid, it had to be established that there was commission of offence under S. 3, read with S. 4 of the said Act and Order. Unless it is found that the accused had mens rea at the time of commission of the said offence, S. 6-A of the aforesaid Act could not come into play as was held in Nathulal v.State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 43 : (1966 Cri LJ 71...."

19. A learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Munshi Ram Ram Niwas, 1985 Cri LJ 1230, also held:--

"The provisions of S. 6-A are in pari materia with the provisions of S. 7. An intentional contravention of an order made under S. 3 of E.C. Act has to be established. Mens rea or bona fide of a dealer is a necessary element of the proceedings under S. 6-A of E.C. Act. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that mens rea is a necessary ingredient in the proceedings for enforcing the penal provision incorporated in S. 6-A of E.C. Act which empowers the Collector to order confiscation....."

20. The Madhya Pradesh High Court also took the same view in the case of Khemraj Jugraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 Cri LJ 1479.

21. In view of the plethora of decisions, referred to supra, it must be held that mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The submission of Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, that S. 10-C of the Essential Commodities Act presumes mens rea is not of much significance. No doubt, S. 10-C raises a presumption that culpable mental state exists, but it is a rebuttable presumption and it will be open for the accused to prove that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged. In our opinion, S. 10-C itself indicates that mens rea is a necessary element to attract the provisions of the Act, but by virtue of legal fiction, a presumption arises which can be rebutted by an accused. Admittedly, neither the Collector while passing the original order, nor the State Government while disposing of the appeal has considered the question of presence or absence of mens rea of the petitioner and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner has been able to rebut the presumption arising out of S. 10-C of the Act. On the other hand, the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has been submitting returns as an "importer" on a bona fide belief that the provision relating to "importer" in the State Order still continues. ......

14. In the present case, what appears from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector and the available records, is that it has not even been mentioned anywhere as to who was the person driving the tractor and the trolley carrying the alleged essential commodity, when it was seized. The impugned order passed by the Collector and the Judge in appeal are conspicuously silent about the identity of the person too, who seized the vehicle carrying the stock of controlled rice. A perusal of the FIR, however, shows that it was apprehended by a certain Vishram Singh, who informed the police about the apprehension. In the FIR also, which carries the statement of Vishram Singh, all that is said is that the tractor belonged to the petitioner. It is not said who was driving the tractor or had control over it. The petitioner, in his objections submitted to the Collector, said that the tractor, along with the trolley, was picked up from his home by the Police and was never apprehended in the manner alleged by the Authorities or in the notice giving rise to the confiscation proceedings. It has particularly been mentioned in Paragraph No. 5 of the objections that the G.D. entry relating to seizure of the stock of rice made at the police station vide G.D. No. 23 at 15:40 hours does not bear any reference to the tractor trolley or a memo of recovery relating to seizure of the tractor trolley. With all these objections taken, and the gaping flaw in the State's report about the conspicuous absence of the tractor driver's name anywhere, ought to have moved the Collector into asking the State to furnish these details and establish on the basis of records that the petitioner's tractor was at all involved. Quite apart, the Collector had to record a finding, if he reached conclusion on the basis of material before him, that the petitioner's tractor was indeed involved, that the petitioner knew that it was carrying an essential commodity in violation of a Control Order. Much about this angle of mens rea would depend upon who was driving the tractor. If it was a person other than the petitioner, a finding would have to be recorded that the person who was driving the tractor had the necessary mens rea, which he shared with the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Collector does not carry any of these decisive findings; it does not even mention the essential fact as to who was driving the tractor at the relevant time, and the nature of his connection to the petitioner. It is logically on the edifice of these facts that a finding about mens rea would be built.

15. The Collector was also required, amongst others, by all standards of fairness, to return a finding on the petitioner's specific objection, that there was no entry about the seizure of his tractor in G.D. No. 23 or to a recovery memo relating to his tractor, the said G.D. entry being one relating to the seizure of an essential commodity allegedly carried on the petitioner's tractor-trolley.

16. The absence of all these findings render the order impugned, passed by the Collector, one in violation of Section 6-A(1) read with Section 6-B of the Act of 1955. An order of confiscation has very serious civil consequences for the person whose property is confiscated. Every citizen has a right to his property, guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Constitution and the deprivation of that right can come about strictly in accordance with law; not otherwise. Both the Authorities below, in the clear opinion of this Court, have proceeded on what are sketchy and vague findings, so far as involvement of the petitioner's tractor in carting an offending essential commodity is concerned. In the clear opinion of this Court, upon findings of the kind recorded by the Authorities below, confiscation of the petitioner's tractor cannot be ordered. The learned Sessions Judge, while affirming the Collector's order, has not at all bestowed consideration to the infirmities, procedural and substantive, vitiating the order of confiscation. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is also bad on the same score, as the Collector's. It goes without saying that if in the criminal case instituted on the basis of the same facts arising from the FIR relating to Case Crime No. 413 of 2016, under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955, Police Station - Paraur, District - Shahjahanpur, the petitioner is convicted at the trial, it would be open to the learned Judge to pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation of the tractor-trolley in question, subject, of course, to his discretion, in the exercise of powers under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act of 1955.

17. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, and the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahajahanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2017, are hereby set aside.

18. Let the petitioner's tractor, bearing Registration No. UP 27 Y 1676, of Sonalika make, blue in colour, be returned to him forthwith, upon the petitioner executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac and undertaking to produce the tractor-trolley before the Trial Court, if and when required, and not to change its coat, colour or appearance, or damage or destroy it, or transfer it to a third party. However, if the trial is not pending, no such bond is required to be furnished before release. In the event the confiscated tractor has been auctioned, its price equivalent to the sum determined by the Collector vide order dated 05.06.2017 payable by the petitioner in lieu of confiscation, that is to say, Rs. 4,61,700/- shall be paid to the petitioner by the State, forthwith.

Order Date :- March the 26th, 2021

I. Batabyal / Brijesh Maurya