STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. versus ARVIND KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 23-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 117 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
v. 
ARVIND KUMAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1075-76 of 2012) 
JULY 23, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - ss. 3, 6-A, 7 and 10 
A 
B 
- Seizure of wheat - From the premises of respondent - No 
one came forward to claim the seized material - FIR u/ss. 7 C 
and 10 of the Act and ulss. 4211424 IPC - Writ petition seeking 
quashing of FIR and in the alternative order for release of 
wheat - High Court directing release of wheat - Respondents' 
application for release of wheat dismissed by CJM on the 
ground that they failed to prove their ownership over the seized 
D 
material - Respondents' Petition against the order of CJM 
allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: The question of 
ownership over the seized goods being a question of fact 
could not have been gone into by High Court in its revisional 
or extra-ordinary jurisdiction - High Court dealt with the matter 
E 
in complete disregard uf the legislation - A court cannot issue 
a direction contrary to Jaw nor can it direct an authority to act 
in contravention of the statutory provisions - Penal Code, 1860 
- ss. 4211424 /PC - Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 
2001 - Clause 6(a) - Jurisdiction. 
F 
Upon receiving secret information, officials raided the 
flour mill of the respondents and found wheat being off-
loaded from a truck. Appellants seized 5923 bags of 
wheat. The seized material made it apparent that there 
had been diversion of grains of Food Corporation of India, 
G 
for the purpose of black marketing. No one came forward 
to claim the seized material. FIR was lodged u/ss. 7 and 
10 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and u/ss. 421/424 
IPC against the respondents. 
117 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents filed a writ petition lor quashing of FIR 
and in the alternative for release of the confiscated 
goods. High Court allowed the petition directing release 
of the confiscated goods observing that continuing 
seizure of the confiscated articles like wheat for a long 
B time might not be justified. When the respondents made 
an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate for release 
of the wheat, the same was dismissed on the ground that 
they failed to produce any document to show their 
ownership over the seized material. Respondents then 
c again approached the High Court filing an application 
against the order of CJM, and the same was allowed. 
Therefore the instant appeal was filed against both the 
orders of the High Court. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Essential Commodities Act was 
enacted to safeguard public interest, considering it 
necessary in the interests of the general public to control 
the production, supply and distribution of, trade and 
E commerce in, certain commodities through the 
legislation. It was in light of the aforesaid public policy 
that Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to 
issue notifications and once a notification is issued, it 
further enables the competent authority to confiscate the 
F goods under Section 6-A and prosecution leading to the 
punishment provided u/s. 7 of the Act. The Collector has 
been empowered u/s. 6-A, if it is so found to be expedient, 
to sell the seized commodity which is subject to natural 
decay, at a controlled price or by public auction or to 
G dispose off them through the Public Distribution System 
to avoid artificial shortages, maintain price line and 
secure equitable distribution thereof through fair price 
shops as it is in the interest of the general public. [Para 
6) (124-A-E] 
H 
2. The High Court has not even taken a prima facie 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. v. ARVIND KUMAR & ANR. 119 
view that the State Government has not issued any order/ 
A 
notification u/s. 3 of the Act though the FIR made a 
reference to clause 6(a) of the Public Distribution System 
(Control) Order, 2001 issued u/s. 3. Respondent also 
referred to the said Control Order 2001 in the writ petition 
filed by them. More so, the question of ownership of the 
B 
goods seized is a question of fact which ought not to 
have been gone into by the High Court in its revisional 
or extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Further, there is nothing on 
record on the basis of which the issue of ownership was 
·decided by the High Court. There was no cogent material c 
on record before the High Court on the basis of which 
direction to release the goods so seized could be i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.