Deo Saran Kushwaha and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others

Deo Saran Kushwaha and Others vs State of U. P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 06, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455072

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/455072
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D. S. Sinha and ;O. P. Jain, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 06, 1997
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 20629 of 1991
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - seizure - Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - sale proceeds of essential commodities which is seized and sold under Section 6A of the Act - can be paid to owner or person from whom it is seized - only upon existence of condition which are given in provision of Act-petition dismissed. - - It is ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7, 6A, 6A(1 and 3) and 6C(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deo Saran Kushwaha and Others

Advocate Shree Prakash Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U. P. and Others

Advocate S. C.

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7, 6A, 6A(1 and 3) and 6C(1)
Reported In: 1998(1)AWC369

Excerpt

civil - seizure - section 6a of essential commodities act, 1955 - sale proceeds of essential commodities which is seized and sold under section 6a of the act - can be paid to owner or person from whom it is seized - only upon existence of condition which are given in provision of act-petition dismissed. - - it is perfect and in conformity with the provisions of section 6a of the act.d. s. sinha and o. p. jain, jj.1. heard shri shree prakash singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and shri a. n. shukla, learned standing counsel representing the respondents.2. by the impugned order dated 8th march, 1991 the collector. ghazipur has declined to pay to the petitioners sale proceeds of the essential commodities seized for violation of the provisions of essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'act'), on the ground that the question of payment of sale proceeds would be considered by the competent court dealing with the case under section 3/7 of the act and that he had no jurisdiction to do so.3. the court has carefully scrutinized the impugned order and is of the opinion that it is in conformity with the provisions contained in section 6a of theact.4. conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 6a of the act makes it clear that sale proceeds of essential commodities which is seized and sold under section 6a of the act can be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seized only upon existence of the following conditions :(a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the collector,(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6c so requires, or(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted.5. in the instant case, conditions specified for payment of sale proceeds of goods seized are not demonstrated to exist. on the contrary, the impugned order indicates that when it was passed, the matter was under investigation. thus, the order cannot be assailed. it is perfect and in conformity with the provisions of section 6a of the act.6. in the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

D. S. Sinha and O. P. Jain, JJ.

1. Heard Shri Shree Prakash Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. N. Shukla, learned standing counsel representing the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 8th March, 1991 the Collector. Ghazipur has declined to pay to the petitioners sale proceeds of the essential commodities seized for violation of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the ground that the question of payment of sale proceeds would be considered by the competent court dealing with the case under Section 3/7 of the Act and that he had no Jurisdiction to do so.

3. The court has carefully scrutinized the impugned order and is of the opinion that it is in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 6A of theAct.

4. Conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the Act makes it clear that sale proceeds of essential commodities which is seized and sold under Section 6A of the Act can be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seized only upon existence of the following conditions :

(a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector,

(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 6C so requires, or

(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted.

5. In the instant case, conditions specified for payment of sale proceeds of goods seized are not demonstrated to exist. On the contrary, the Impugned order indicates that when it was passed, the matter was under Investigation. Thus, the order cannot be assailed. It is perfect and in conformity with the provisions of Section 6A of the Act.

6. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1997 Same Parties Deo Saran Kushwaha and Others vs State of U. P. and Others Same Subject Civil Same Judge D. S. Sinha and ;O. P. Jain, JJ. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 7, 6A, 6A(1 and...

Civil