IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6293 of 2009 1 Pappu Kumar, son of Shri Kedar Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village – Uchauli, Police Station – Khizarsarai, District – Gaya 2 Dilip Kumar, son of Shri Ram Chandra Tanti, Resident of Village – Makshudpur Raniganj, Police Station – Khizarsarai, District - Gaya - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Collector, Gaya 3 The Block Supply Officer, Manpur, Gaya - Respondents ----------- 2 19.05.2009 Substantial quantity of wheat and rice has been seized by the police from three pick up vans on which they were loaded in bags. Police alleges that they are rice which are distributed through public distribution system from godown of Food Corporation of India. On this seizure being effected, Buniyadganj Police Station Case No 84 of 2008 was instituted on 18.10.2008 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Report of this seizure was then sent to the Collector, Gaya for initiating a confiscation proceeding in terms of Section 6A of the E C Act. The Collector, Gaya, while issuing notice to the persons who were found in possession of the said stocks of wheat and rice, as an interim measure, directed the sale of the said wheat and rice and deposit of the sale proceeds in the Treasury. Petitioners have come challenging the said seizure and all consequential proceedings in that regard. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that wheat and rice have been removed from licensing provisions under the Essential Commodities Act. There is no price control or distribution control or movement control in relation thereto. There cannot be an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. There being no statutory price 2 fixation then in terms of judgment of this Court in the case of Pritam Lal Yadav & Others –Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in 1982 PLJR 304, there cannot be a question of blackmarketing. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation in the first information report is with regard to Government rice and wheat from the FCI godown being misappropriated. He submits that the matter is still under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mere bald allegation that it is FCI wheat and rice cannot lead to any criminality. Before such an allegation can be made and sustained, authorities have to identify the godown from where this wheat and rice was issued. Then they must identify that the person to whom it was issued has not carried it to his place of business and distributed it among card holders. Unless these are found and satisfied, it cannot be said that it was FCI godown that remains in the arena of mere speculative allegation not supported by facts. The petitioners further submit that even if it be assumed that stocks of wheat and rice of FCI were being misappropriated, that would be an offence under the Indian Penal Code and would not be an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Be that as it may, as matter is under investigation for an allegation that it was FCI wheat and rice, I do not propose to interfere at this moment. However, it is only appropriate to direct that police while investigating would have to give a clear finding on facts to be found that wheat and rice came from a particular godown of FCI and 3 was meant to go to a particular destination but never reached there. It is only on these allegations being found that an allegation of misappropriation can at all be sustained. In absence of that, there being no licensing provision nor price control nor movement control nor distribution control in relation to wheat and rice, the proceedings for confiscation would be absolutely misconceived and without jurisdiction. I, therefore, direct the Collector, Gaya to decide the confiscation proceedings keeping in view the observations above within a period of two months and in absence of any specific facts, as indicated above, he would be obliged to decide the proceedings keeping in view the observations made above and pass orders in accordance with law. In case the proceedings are held to be not sustainable then the Collector would be obliged, in terms of Section 6C (2) of the E C Act, to pay the price of the wheat and rice at market rate to the petitioners or claimants thereof but he can surely not keep the proceedings pending beyond the period of two months from the date this order is produced before him. A word of caution: It is not the law of the land that actions are taken and precipitated first (seizure and sale) and then investigations are made whether any crime is committed. The law of the land is just the otherwise. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)