IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.320 of 2009 MINU SINGH W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, R/O FATEHGANJ GORUDWARA ROAD, PS- KOTWALI, DISTT- GAYA-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE D.M.-CUM-COLLECTOR,GAYA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, GAYA 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BODH GAYA,GAYA 4. THE OFFICE-IN-CHARGE, PS- BODH GAYA, GAYA--RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate Miss Shobina Rubab,Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.S.K.Sinha, SC-13 with Assistant counsel. ------------ 2 7.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very limited question of law with regard to confiscation of Truck No. BR-2-2676 belonging to petitioner which was initially seized on the institution of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 80 of 2007. The District Magistrate, Gaya in exercise of power under section 6(1) of the E.C. Act 1955 has confiscated the truck of the petitioner by a very cryptic order dated 12.7.2007. The short facts are that the truck in question loaded with wheat was flagged down on 13.6.2007 on a suspicion that wheat meant for Antyodaya Anna Yojna was being transported illegally for indulging in black-marketing and illegal gain. An FIR was instituted being Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 80 of 2007 under some sections of the Indian Penal Code along with section 7 of the E.C. Act. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by notification dated 15th February, 2002 an amendment had been brought about in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and - 2 - by virtue of the said amendment besides several food grains even wheat has been taken out of the purview of the Essential Commodities Act. Once it is taken out from the category of Essential Commodities Act then it is no longer a controlled item or no Control Order will apply in dealing with wheat which is seized in the present case. There is no restriction of transportation, sale, consumption or distribution of the said item after 2002 Amendment. If that is so, then obviously the respondent authority have acted illegally by applying of section 7 of the E.C. Act and consequently ordering of confiscation of seized truck of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case was instituted, investigated and chargesheet has been filed in the matter. The case has also been instituted under Penal offences and therefore confiscation was necessitated. Contention of learned counsel for the State is not supported by the provision of law. He has no answer for the fact that wheat has been taken out of the purview of the Essential Commodities Act, no Control Order is to be applied with regard to the said commodity. So far the offences under Indian Penal Code are concerned, petitioner has to answer for the same before the court in the proceeding which is pending but obviously the power of confiscation exercised has been misused, beyond jurisdiction and illegal in absence of law to do so. The order impugned dated - 3 - 12.12.2007 passed by the Collector, Gaya in relation to Truck No. BR-2-2676 confiscating the same is hereby set aside. This writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the truck in question after verifying the ownership and the original papers which shall be produced by the petitioner before the subordinate court where Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 80 of 2007 is pending. The writ application is allowed with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)