Appeal No2929 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 20121985 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 3120 of 1985 
KR Nagaraja RS Hegde and Mrs Sushila for the Appel lant
GVenkatesh Rao and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 20th December 1985 dismissing in 140 limine the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Lt Governor Delhi dated 8th November 1985
This Court by order dated 25th August 1986 granted special leave limited to the following question
One of the questions raised by the learned counsel before us is whether the samples taken from 3 out of 80 bags of Khandsari could be treated as representative samples
He has cited before us a judgment of the High Court where it has been held that they cannot be so treated
We grant special leave limited to the question stated above
We find no force in other Submissions
In order to decide the above question we would mention facts in brief necessary in this regard
In a raid in the business premises of the appellant on 28th February 1980 the following bags of Khandsari sugar were seized in the presence of Shri Ram Niwas sole proprie tor of the firm
Khandsari 53 bags Khandsari dust 18 bags Khandsari sulphur 9 bags Total 80 bags Two samples each from all the three varieties of Khandsari were taken and three samples of sugar were sent for analysis to the public analyst
The public analyst reported that the samples of sugar contained Sucrose 935 942 and 9716 respectively
The Collector passed an order confis cating the entire goods as the same were kept in contraven tion of the provisions of Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1963 in short the Licensing Order 
It is not necessary to mention the details of this order of confisca tion because the matter had gone upto the High Court and the case was ultimately remanded by the High Court of Delhi by order dated 27th March 1984
The High Court directed the Collector for denovo determination of the proceedings under Section 6A of the  in ac cordance with law
The Collector North after remand gave a fresh show cause notice to the appellant on 21st May 1984 setting forth the brief sequence of the proceedings and asking him to show cause as to why the entire stock of 80 bags of sugar seized in the case be not confiscated to the State The appellant appeared and Fred a written reply to the show cause notice
The case was then heard at length and the Collector again passed an order confiscating the entire seized stock of 80 quintals of sugar
An appeal fried against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Lt Gover nor Delhi by order dated 8th November 1985
A writ peti tion filed against the order of the Lt Governor was dis missed in limine by the High Court by order dated 20th December 1985
Hence this appeal
141 Clause 2 f i of the Licensing Order defines sugar as under
Sugar means any form of sugar including Khandsari sugar containing more than 90 of Sucrose Under the Licensing Order a person was entitled to keep only upto a maximum of 10 quintals of sugar without a licence
Admittedly the appellant was not having any li cence
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in order to prove that Khandsari was sugar under the Licensing Order it was necessary to prove that it contained more than 90 of Sucrose
It was submitted that the prosecution only took two samples each out of the three bags from the entire lot of 80 bags of Khandsari and this could at the most show that only 3 quintals of Khandsari was sugar and the same being less than 10 quintals there was no violation of the Licensing Order
It was submitted that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant was in posses sion of more than 10 quintals of sugar and this could only be done by taking samples from all the bags of Khandsari if it wanted to show that other bags of Khandsari also con tained more than 90 bags of Sucrose
It was also submitted that the possibility cannot be excluded that those bags from which samples were not taken did not contain Sucrose more than 90
It was argued that the burden lay on the prosecu tion to prove that more than 10 quintals of sugar was found in the premises and then alone any order of confiscation could have been passed
In support of the above contention reliance was placed on a judgment of learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Suraj Bhan Sharad Kumar vs Delhi Admin istration Crl
Revision No 104 of 1980 decided on 25th September 1980
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the contention raised on behalf of the appellant has no force
The admitted facts of the case are that at the time of seizure of the goods Shri Ram Niwas was present and the samples were taken in his presence
Two samples each were taken separately from three different varieties of Khandsari at the instance of Shri Ram Niwas himself
It was proved by the public analyst that all the three samples contained Sucrose more than 90
It was nowhere disputed nor suggest ed by Shri Ram Niwas at the time of taking samples or there after that the samples taken would not represent the correct quantity of Sucrose in those bags of Khandsari from which samples were not taken
Shri Ram Niwas had filed a reply in writing to show cause notice but in such reply also no objection was taken as sought to be raised now
In the facts and circumstances mentioned above if the Collector was satisfied that 80 quintals of sugar were found in the prem ises without licence
it cannot be said that the order of confiscation passed by 142 the Collector was arbitrary or based on no material
The decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Suraj Bhan Sharad Kumar vs Delhi Administration supra is totally distinguishable as in that case the dealer was having licence and the prosecution failed to prove that he was in possession of more than 1000 quintals of sugar
In the case in hand before us the facts are entirely different
As already mentioned above Only two samples each were taken from the three varieties and all the three samples were found to contain more than 90 Sucrose
A large quanti ty of 80 quintals of Khandsari was found in the premises whereas only 10 quintals of sugar was allowed to be kept without licence
Thus it was quite reasonable for the col lector to hold that there were more than 10 quintals of Khandsari having more than 90 Sucrose and this violated the Licensing Order
Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case we are fully satisfied that the Collector had enough materi al for his satisfaction that there was violation of the Licensing Order and there was sufficient justification for him to pass the order of confiscation
The order of confis cation passed by the Collector is maintained and the appeal is dismissed
During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a criminal prosecution is pending against the appellant Ram Niwas but no effective progress has been made in the case except filing of challan
It appears to us that the State is not serious in pursuing the criminal proceedings and even otherwise more than 10 years have already elapsed to the alleged commission of the offence
It would be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the case
We therefore direct to drop the criminal proceedings launched and pending against the appellant Shri Ram Niwas in the present matter
TNA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In the suit filed by the Union of India against Union Carbide Corporation UCC filed before the Southern District Court at New York the presiding Judge directed the utilisa tion of 5 Million Dollars deposited by UCC towards Interim Relief Fund for affording relief to the victims of the Bhopal Gas leak disaster through the Indian Red Cross Socie ty
The said payment was intended to be without prejudice to the contentions of UCC
Also it was to be credited against the payment of any final judgment or settlement of the claims against UCC arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak disas ter
The Indian Red Cross Society sought to stipulate with the American Red Cross that the Indian Red Cross Society should be free from any contingent obligations stemming from the final result of the litigation one way or the other
However the terms of the order were not changed
After the proceedings in the US District Court termi nated upon UCC s plea of forum non conveniens being upheld Union of India instituted a suit In the District Court at Bhopal
The claim in the suit came to be settled In this Court by its orders dated 1415th February 1989
In terms of the settlement order the said sum of 5 Million US Dol lars was treated as part of the settlement Fund and a direc tion was given to the Registrar to have the amount trans ferred to his credit which was lying unutilised with the Indian Red Cross Society
The Indian Red Cross Society has filed the present applications
It contended that the order dated 15th Febru ary 1989 in so far as it treated the unutilised part of the interim relief fund and authorising the Registrar to realise it as such was not consistent with the terms under which the relief fund was agreed to be entrusted to and accepted by it and 382 so the directions given in regard to the said relief fund required to be deleted
On the question whether the interim relief of 5 Million US Dollars was a distant award standing independently and outside the final adjudication dismissing the applications this Court HELD 1
The agreement between the American Red Cross and the Indian Red Cross Society came to be discussed before the District Court New York during the bearing on 20th November 1985
The portions of the transcript of what tran spired at the hearing indicate that far from approving the purported arrangement inter se between the American Red Cross and the Indian Red Cross Society they show that the terms of the order dated June 7 1985 as to the nature and character of the interim relief as an advance payment or credit to the defence were left undisturbed
The tran script of the hearing also reaffirms that if there is any recovery against Union Carbide it is a set off 
Also there is nothing on record to show that the terms as to the nature and character of the interim payment had been altered in terms of the inter se arrangements pleaded by the Indian Red Cross Society
In the circumstances the agreement between the American Red Cross and the Indian Red Cross Society cannot prevail over the effect of the order dated 7th June 1985 of Judge Keenan
This Court s directions in this behalf in the order dated 15th February 1989 are not inconsistent therewith and do not therefore require any modification
386 B F 2
Now that the terms of the settlement have been upheld in the review proceedings the unutilised part of the interim relief of 5 Million US Dollars will become part of the Bhopal gas relief fund and shall have to be administered as such
The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall be entitled to call up the funds with the Indian Red Cross Society which stood unutilised as on 15th February 1989
386 F G