-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Bishan Singh & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (1)S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.227/2007 UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Kamal Prakash Biyani & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.680/2004 Jeet Singh & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (3)S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.701/2004 Kamal Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (4)S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.989/2004 UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of Order : April 28, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.S.D.Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : These four petitions, one revision petition being No.227/2007 filed u/s.397/401 CrPC against the order of -2- learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated 28.2.2007 passed in Cr.Appeal No.124/2006 upholding the order of Collector dated 29.9.2004 for confiscation of fertilizers and three Misc.Petitions filed under Sec.482 CrPC, one for quashing the notice of confiscation of the fertilizers and two for quashing the FIR No.694 dt.7.10.2003, Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, arise out of one F.I.R. and, therefore, they are being disposed-of by the common order. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the Dy.Director, Agriculture, Hanumangarh filed a written report before the S.H.O., Hanumangarh on 7.10.2003 that on 2.10.2003, one Puran Mal Meena, A.C.T.O., Bhadra, alongwith his patrolling party seized three tractors from Bishan Singh, Jeet Singh and Saheb Singh containing fertilizers therein. The fertilizers were chemically examined. According to the F.I.R., the fertilizers were cureta of potas having 60% imported K2O and standarized by IPL was to be transported at M/s Biyani Industries, Distt. Hanumangarh for industrial use and purchased from M/s Biyani's Chambalka Mahabhandar, Sirsa vide Bills No.0801 to 805 dated 1.10.03. Though the fertilizers was K2O but it was entered as KNO in the bills. According to F.I.R., this was in violation of Clauses 5, 7, 9, 19 and 25 of F.C.O. and thereby offence u/s.3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been committed. The matter was -3- investigated and the goods were confiscated by the order of the Collector, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and hence the impugned revision petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the three drivers and owner Kamal Prakash Biyani challenged the F.I.R. in the petitioners filed u/s.482 CrPC being 680/2004 and 701/2004 on the ground that the seizure is illegal and the potas was used for agricultural purposes and was of specific standard, whereas in Misc.Petition No.989/2004, notice of Collector for confiscation dated 7.10.04 was challenged by owner of the tractor viz; Kamal Prakash Biyani, while the drivers challenged the order of confiscation in Revision Petition No.227/2007. According to the learned counsel, despite stay of the investigation by the order of this Court dated 27.8.2004 and confirmed by this Court on 3.8.2006, order of confiscation has been passed by the Collector when the contempt petition was filed against him. According to the learned counsel, now the police has also given the Final Report in this case, which is on record and the ACTO has also quashed the proceedings, which he came to know after filing of these petitions. Therefore, the order of confiscation as well as F.I.R. be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the goods -4- were not used for agricultural purposes. It was a large quantity and the drivers of the tractor were not the agriculturists. Having perused the record of the case, it appears that the police has given the Final Report in this matter on 2.4.2004 and the police has come to the conclusion that no offence is made out against M/s Biyani Industries and the drivers as the drivers obtained the tractors from Kamal Prakash Biyani for carrying fertilizers for their own agricultural use. It was also revealed in the investigation that the said potas is not used by Kamal Prakash in his factory and they are only preparing `kalmi salt'. Whatever offence has been committed with regard to violation of F.C.O. Under the E.C.Act is against M/s Biyani's Chambalka Mahabhandar, Sirsa, Haryana and this State has no jurisdiction over this matter. Further, in view of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the F.C.O., Puran Mal Meena was not the competent authority to seize the fertilizers and the tractors, as under that provision, only the Inspector of Fertilizers appointed by the State Government by way of notification in the official gazette is competent to seize the same. That apart, the A.C.T.O. has also observed in his order dated 21.3.2004 that from enquiry, it was revealed that fertilizers was brought in the State for agricultural use and the proceedings were quashed under the Sales Tax Act. A letter was also accordingly sent to the -5- Dy.Director, Agriculture, Hanumangarh, in this regard but despite that, police wants to proceed on FIR lodged on 7.10.2003 under the garb of opinion of Asstt. Director, Prosecution. In view of the findings of the Investigating Officer and the A.C.T.O., absolutely no case is made out against the owner of the tractors Kamal Prakash Biyani and the drivers of the tractors, who were carrying the fertilizers for their agricultural use for the purpose of confiscation of fertilizers under the circumstances as narrated above. Learned Sessions Judge while upholding the order of the Collector with regard to confiscation, has brushed aside these circumstances in his order. Thus, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and legal. In view of this, the revision petition filed by the drivers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the petitions filed u/s.482 CrPC by the owner of the tractors viz; Kamal Prakash Biyani deserve to be allowed, whereas the petitions u/s.482 CrPC for quashing the F.I.R. have become infructuous, as the police has already recommended the Final Report in the matter. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition No.227/2007 filed by the drivers and Criminal Misc.Petition No.989/2004 filed by owner of the tractors viz; Kamal Prakash Biyani are allowed -6- and the order of the Collector dt.29.9.2004 confiscating the goods and the notice of confiscation dt.7.10.2004 are quashed. So far as the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being No.701/2004 and No.680/2004 for quashing FIR are concerned they are disposed of as having become infructuous on recommending F.R. Accordingly, Investigating officer is directed to submit the Final Report in the court at once and the Court after perusing the record, may pass appropriate orders and in the event of taking contrary view on Final Report, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners who are drivers and the owner of the tractors without giving them 15 days' notice. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS