Jharkhand High Court
Ramanand Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(Cr.) No. 110 of 2021
----
Ramanand Ray, aged about 39 years, son of Sukha Ray, resident of Amar
Transport, North Market Road, Gaushala Chowk, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having office at Collectoriate Office,
Kutchery Road, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi ...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A.V
----
09/25.10.2021 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel for the
respondent State.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order
dated 15.01.2020 whereby an application preferred for release of the
vehicle of this petitioner bearing registration No.JH 01 BC 6658 which has
been seized in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S.Case No.416/2020
lodged for commission of alleged offence under sections 379/411/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act
and whereunder the application being Miscellaneous Criminal Application
No.6944/20 has been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2020 by learned
S.D.J.M., Ranchi, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No.JH 01 BC 6658. He submits that the vehicle in question
was hired by one P.D.S. owner for transportation. However, the vehicle of
the petitioner was seized in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S.Case
No.416/2020. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has got no connection with the seized article namely, rice.
According to him, there is no allegation of violation of any specific
Control Order and no case under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act
is made out against the petitioner. He submits that vehicle in question is
a commercial vehicle.
4. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State submits that notice may not have issued
as yet and the confiscation proceeding is pending and the case is arising
out of PDS Control Order, 2001. He submits that the vehicle was also
being used in illegal business of transporting PDS grain etc.
5. In the light of the above facts, it appears that notice may
not have issued as yet and the confiscation proceeding is pending with
regard to the vehicle in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the Essential Commodities Act in the case of "Kailash Prasad
Yadav and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another", (2007) 5 SCC 769
whereby it has been held that 2001 Order does not deal with the matter
dealing in rice or transportation thereof. There is no provision for search
of the vehicle. For the sake of brevity, paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said
judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
"6. The 2001 Order does not deal with a matter dealing
in wheat or transportation thereof. "Fair price shop" has been
defined in clause 2(k) of the 2001 Order to mean
"a shop, which has been licensed to distribute essential
commodities by an order issued under Section 3 of the
Act to the ration card holders under the Public
Distribution System".
Clause 3 provides for identification of families living
below the poverty line. Clause 4 provides for issuance of ration
cards. Clause 5 deals with scale of issue and issue price. Clause 6
provides for the procedure for distribution of foodgrains by Food
Corporation of India to the State Government or their
nominated agencies. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 obligates the fair
price shopowners to take delivery of stocks from authorised
nominees of the State Governments to ensure that essential
commodities are available at the fair price shop within first
week of the month for which the allotment is made. Sub-clause
(4) thereof obligates the authority or person who is engaged in
the distribution and handling of essential commodities under
the public distribution system not to wilfully indulge in
substitution or adulteration or diversion or theft of stocks from
central godowns to fair price shop premises or at the premises
of the fair price shop. Explanation appended thereto defines
"diversion" to mean
"unauthorised movement or delivery of essential
commodities released from central godowns but not
reaching the intended beneficiaries under the Public
Distribution System".
Clause 9 provides for penalty. There is no provision for
search of a vehicle. The power of search is confined to fair price
shop or any premises relevant to transaction of business of the
fair price shop. The power of such authorities causing a search is
confined to sub-clause (3) of clause 10 of the 2001 Order to
search, seize or remove such books of accounts or stocks of
essential commodities where such authority has reason to believe
that these have been used or will be used in contravention of the
provisions of the Order.
7. A valid seizure, as is well known, is a sine qua non for
passing an order of confiscation of property."
6. Considering the judgment rendered in the case of "Kailash
Prasad Yadav" (supra), this Court has further exercised its powers in the
case of "Anil Kumar Sahu @ Anil Sahu & Another v. The State of
Jharkhand And Others", 2008 4 JLJR 390 and in case of "Mahesh Sao v.
The State of Jharkhand and Another", 2010 1 JLJR 222. In view of the
above, the vehicle in question is lying in open premises and in the light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Kailash
Prasad Yadav" (supra), under the circumstances, the Court finds that it
needs intervention by this Court and accordingly, the vehicle bearing
registration No.JH 01 BC 6658 is directed to be released from the
concerned court in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S.Case No.416/2020
on the following terms and conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity
bond to the satisfaction of the court below;
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and
owner of a commercial vehicle of the District of Ranchi;
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale,
mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on
hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any
manner;
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the
identification of the vehicle in any manner, and
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when
directed by the trial court.
7. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and
conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper.
8. W.P.(Cr.) No.110 of 2021 stands disposed of.
9. I.A. if any stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
