IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.363 of 2009 GULAB CHAND PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 07.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was a retailer for coal vide licence no. 69 of 1989. A prosecution under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated against him leading to Confiscation Case No. 3 of 1992. The prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act before the competent Court, Rohtas at Sasaram was registered as G.R. Case No. 2038 of 1991 (Tr. No. 1101 of 2003). While the criminal prosecution was pending, pursuant to an order dated 11.3.1992, the petitioner deposited the sale proceeds of the coal in question, for which irregularities were alleged, of a sum of Rs. 11,349/- vide challan no. 11 dated 7.4.1992. Final orders were passed in the confiscation proceeding by the Collector, Rohtas on 26.8.1992 of the sale proceeds confiscated. Thereafter the criminal prosecution was summarily tried and decided vide order dated 5.5.2003 when the petitioner was acquitted by the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. The order of acquittal noticed that despite repeated summons to the prosecution, no one appeared to support the prosecution. After his acquittal, the petitioner approached the 2 Collector, Rohtas on 8.7.2003 and 1.9.2003 for release of the sale amount i.e. Rs. 11,349/- confiscated earlier. It has been rejected on 16.7.2005 vide Annexure-4. The order states that the petitioner had not been honourably acquitted but that he had been acquitted in absence of prosecution and, therefore, could not be completely absolved of his liability. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the Collector by the impugned order seeks to take advantage of the lapses of the prosecution itself before the trial court in not appearing. The law stands settled that no person can take advantage of his own wrong. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has an order of acquittal rendering the confiscation proceedings bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1997(1) PLJR 800 (Nathuni Sah versus The State of Bihar & ors.) granting interest on the confiscated amount @ 15% for reasons discussed therein. Learned counsel for the State opposing the application submits that in the judgment sought to be relied upon consequent to the acquittal in the criminal trial an appropriate order on appeal was passed setting aside the confiscation order under Section 6 (C) of the Essential Commodities Act. The technical distinction made on behalf of the State does not appeal this Court. It has been noticed that it was the State which was at 3 fault for the summary trial. The money of the petitioner has then illegally been retained by the State ever since the petitioner filed his application for return of the money. The writ application is allowed and interest @ 15% is awarded from 6.7.2005, the date that the Collector has passed the order on the sum of Rs. 11,349/- to be paid within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)