KAILASH PRASAD YADAV AND ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 02-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAILASH PRASAD Y ADA V AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
MAY2, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TIU, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955-ss.3 & 6A(l)(c): 
-~ 
c 
Vehicle carrying wheal belonging lo FCI-Order of confiscation-
Allegation of State that the vehicle owners abetted a fair price shop dealer 
appointed under the 2001 Order-Held: The 2001 Order does not deal with 
a matter dealing in wheal or transportation thereof-There is no provision 
for search of a vehicle therein---There being no clear finding in regard to 
D 
violation of an order made under s.3 of the Act, order of confiscation not 
warranted-Public Distribution System (Controlj Order, 2001. 
Appellants owned a truck. The truck was hired for transportation of 
foodgrains. It was allegedly carrying wheat belonging to the Food Corporation 
of India, when confiscation proceedings was initiated whereafter an order of 
E confiscation was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Appeal there against 
was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Appellants filed writ petition before 
the High Court which too was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court it is contended by the Appellants that wheat being 
a de-controlled item and there being no control whatsoever, either on trading 
F of wheat or possession or transportati1Jn thereof, the order of confiscation 
was not warranted. 
The State, on the other hand, contended that the Appellants having 
abetted a fair price shop dealer who was appointed under the Public 
G 
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, the order of confiscation cannot 
be faulted with. 
...
..... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Confiscation of goods and the vehicles and vessels carrying 
H the same amounts to deprivation of property. Confiscation of an essential 
1150 
KAILASH PRASADY ADA Vv. STA TEOF JHARKHAND 
1151 
f 
commodity or a tuck is permissible only if the provisions of any order made A 
under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are violated. When 
a vehicle is used for carrying an essential commodity, it may be seized and 
ultimately directed to be confiscated in terms of Clause (c) of Sub-Section 
(1) of Section 6-A of the Act. Violation of an order made under Section 3 of 
the Act, therefore, is a pre-condition for passing an order of confiscation. 
B 
(Para 5] (1152-G-H] 
2. The 2001 Order does not deal with a matter dealing in wheat or 
.., 
transportation thereof. "Fair Price Shop" has been defined in Clause 2(k) o~ 
the 2001 Order to mean "a shop, which has been licensed to distribute 
essential commodities by an order issued under Section 3 of the Act, to the 
ration card holders under the Public Distribution System." Clause 9 of the c 
Order provides for penalty. There is no provision for search of a vehicle. The 
power of search is confined to fair price shop or any premises relevant to 
transaction of business of the fair price shop. The power of such authorities 
causing a search is confined to Sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 of the 2001 Order 
to search, seize or remove such books of accounts or stocks of essential D 
commodities where such authority has reason to believe that these have been 
used or will be used in contravention of the provisions of the Order.[Para 6] 
3. A valid seizure is a sine qua non for passing an order of confiscation 
·-
of property. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been considered 
by any of the authorities and the courts. [Paras 7 and 8] (1153-F-G] 
E 
4. Also, the order of confiscation is not passed only because it would be 
lawful to do so. The authorities must arrive at a clear finding in regard to the 
violation made under Section 3 of the Act. The issues raised before this Court 
have not been considered either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the F 
Sessions Judge as also by the High Court. The matter is pending before the 
criminal court. Therefore, there is no need to delve further into the matter. 
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it was not a fit case 
where an order of confiscation could have been passed. [Para 10] [1154-B-D] 
Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and Anr., [1990] 3 G 
r 
~· 
SCC 549 and Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph 
Fernandes, [2000] 3 SCC 306, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 
2007. 
H 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2006 of the High Court 
., 
of Jharkh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.