IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.933 of 2010 GANESH PRASAD KESARI SON OF SRI RAGHUNATH PRASAD KESARI, PROPRIETOR OF MAA JAGDAMBA ENTERPRISES, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BUDHAPURA GOLAMBAR, POLICE STATION BUXAR TOWN, BUXAR. …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY With CR. REV. No.928 of 2010 RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF SHEO NATH PRASAD GUPTA PROPRIETOR OF SHUBHAM TRADERS, BUXAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHHOTKI SARIMPUR POLICE STATION BUXAR TOWN, BUXAR. …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.S.R.P.Sinha, Sr.Advocate & : Mr.Rahul Nath For the State : Mr.J. Upadhyay,APP. --- 03. 18.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties both these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner of Cr.Revision No.933 of 2010(Ganesh Prasad Kesari) claimed release of 15 tons of Rahar dal, whereas petitioner of Cr.Revision No.928 of 2010 (Rakesh kumar Gupta) sought release of 20 tons of Chana Dal/Chana(gram) which were seized by the authority. It appears that all these edible items were found laden on one truck and the authorities seized them as no valid paper was shown by the petitioners. The application of the petitioners for release of those grains(pulses, grams etc.) were rejected by learned CJM which gave rise to 2 Cr.Revision No.170/10 and Cr. Revision No.171/2010. Learned Sessions Judge, Buxar by order dated 18.06.2010 dismissed both the revision applications. It appears from the revisional order that during the pendency of the application a proceeding for confiscation of the articles/pulses/grams were about to be initiated. This Court by order dated 13.08.2010 directed the State counsel to seek specific instruction about initiation of the confiscation proceeding in terms of the provisions of the E.C. Act. Mr. Upadhyay, learned APP submits that he has been instructed to submit before this Court that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the aforesaid proceeding has been initiated, the same can be said to have been initiated during the pendency of this application and, as such, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners. It is next contended referring to paragraph 6 of the revisional order that the seized pulses/edible items should not be allowed to perish/decay on account of pendency of the proceeding as the same would not be in the interest of either the petitioners or the State. It thus submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to get those seized pulses/articles stored in a godown at the cost of the petitioners during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding. It is also submitted that in the interest of both the parties, this Court may direct the authorities to take up and conclude the said proceeding 3 with utmost expedition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is admitted position at Bar that the proceeding under section 6 of the E.C. Act has been initiated in which the claim(s) of the petitioners shall be gone into. In that view of the matter, this Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction as invoked by the petitioner. However, considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that following directions will serve the interest of both the parties: The authority concerned under the E.C. Act shall take up and try to dispose of the confiscation proceeding within three weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioners in the court below and filing their reply/show causes. Petitioners shall appear in the said proceeding without further loss of time. If the authority finds that proceeding is not likely to be concluded within the aforesaid time then it shall make sure that the seized items/edible pulses are stored in a godown safely for which the petitioners are prepared to incur the costs. With the observation aforesaid, the application is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )