A. Venkatesan Vs. the Ex Officio Secretary to Government, Co-operatation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department and - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]ordert. raja, j.1. the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the entire records insofar as it relates to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/the ex officio secretary to government in his proceedings no. g.o. ms. no. 88, co-operation, food and consumer protection (j1) department, dated 19.03.2004, and to quash the same insofar as it relates to confiscation of 25 bags of boiled rice and consequently to disburse the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice.2. the petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with paddy and rice and he has also been running rice mill in the name and style of 'aruna lakshmi rice mill' at dindukal for several years. after receiving the order for purchase of 320 bags of boiled rice from another license trader of jothi stores, erumadu, the petitioner sold 320 bags of boiled rice and by issuing valid bill nos. 6 & 7, dated 02.07.1996, the same was transported in two lorries bearing registration nos. py-01-e-2034 and tn-27-v-2745 by loading 160 bags rice in each lorry. unfortunately, when the first lorry left the petitioner's destination, on its way, the same was seized by the inspector of police civil supplies cid, coodalore at paraliyar and the second lorry was seized by the revenue officers while it was parked nearby the road side, since the same got breakdown and therefore, under section 6(a) of the essential commodities act, enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent and upon enquiry it was found that rice was properly transported through licence and permission, from concerned authorities, and thereafter he released the lorry and goods insofar as it relates to py-01-e-2035 but in respect of the second lorry bearing registration no. tn-27-v-2745, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings no. na.ka.k.2/sr/100/96, dated 23.10.1996 confiscated 155 bags of boiled rice.3. aggrieved by the above said order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under section 6(c) of essential commodities act, before the 1st respondent herein. after perusal of the relevant records, having found that it was not a smuggling case, the appeal was partly allowed and the confiscation of rice was reduced from 155 bags of boiled rice to 25 bags of boiled rice by releasing the remaining 130 bags of boiled rice as per g.o. ms. no. 88, co-operation, food and consumer protection (j1) department, dated 19.03.2004. aggrieved by the said order forfeiting only 25 bags of boiled rice, the present writ petition has been filed.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made only two submissions. firstly, the respondents having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to receive 155 bags of boiled rice, the respondents are liable to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice as on the date of seizure of the rice. in support of this submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this court, reported in : air 1998 madras 22 (lakshmi rice mills and anr. v. the district revenue officer, madurai and ors.), wherein this court has held that the valuation of the goods seized shall be ascertained in terms of the then market value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure. secondly, he has also urged that once the respondent comes to the conclusion that the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be allowed in respect of 130 bags of boiled rice as per g.o. ms. no. 88, co-operation, food and consumer protection (j1) department, dated 19.03.2004, the confiscation of only 25 bags of boiled rice cannot be legally maintainable or tenable. on that basis it was further argued that the petitioner is entitled to have the value of 160 bags of boiled rice as on the date of seizure of the boiled rice.5. in reply, the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner while appearing before the appellate authority though he was able to explain with the relevant bills and vouchers for having purchased 130 bags of boiled rice, he miserably failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers in respect of 25 bags of boiled rice. therefore, the 1st respondent while returning 130 bags of boiled rice declined to return 25 bags of boiled rice since the petitioner failed to satisfy the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by production of valid evidence in support of his claim therefor. in this view of the matter, it was further contended that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be interfered with. if at all, this court finds any reasonable point in favour of the petitioner for receiving 25 bags of boiled rice, the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority and upon further production of acceptable evidence, the question of returning of 25 bags of boiled rice would be decided by the first appellate authority and on that basis she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.6. heard the learned counsel on both sides.7. admittedly, the petitioner was found to be only of 130 bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority, namely, the 1st respondent herein. when the appellate authority has categorically held that the petitioner is the owner to the extent of 130 bags of boiled rice, out of 155 bags of boiled rice, it come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to receive 130 bags of boiled rice for the reason that he was able to produce acceptable evidence in support of his claim to the satisfaction of the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by producing bills, vouchers, etc. when the 1st respondent, appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of 130 bags of boiled rice, the refusal of returning 25 bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority is not supported by any reason. further, it is neither the case of the respondents nor the appellate authority that the petitioner has smuggled the rice in the above said vehicle. if it is so, the appellate authority would not have returned the vehicle as well as the rice namely, 130 bags of boiled rice as per g.o. ms. no. 88, co-operation, food and consumer protection (j1) department, dated 19.03.2004. once the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of the 155 bags of boiled rice and also came forward to pay the value of the boiled rice as per the judgment of this court, reported in air 1998 madras 22 (lakshmi rice mills and anr. v. the district revenue officer, madurai and ors.), the petitioner is entitled to receive the then prevailing market value of the goods seized by the 2nd respondent at the time of seizure. almost in a similar circumstance, his lordship raju, j. as he then was, in w.p. nos. 12485 to 12488 dated 25.02.1992 observed as follows:i am of the view that the legitimate rights of a citizen to have his property restored or its market value reimbursed cannot be denied on the plea that there is no specific provision in the act to provide for such restitution or reimbursement. the right of a citizen in this regard is secured under article 19(1)(g) and article 300-a of the constitution of india. consequently, the impugned order insofar as the respondent directs the payment of the value of the bags seized and disposed of at the levy price rate shall stand hereby quashed and consequently there shall be a direction to the second respondent to pay the respective petitioners the value ascertained in terms of the then prevailing market value of paddy in open market....i am of the view that the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case.8. therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. accordingly, the same is quashed. while doing so, the respondents are directed to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

T. Raja, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records insofar as it relates to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/the Ex officio Secretary to Government in his proceedings No. G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, and to quash the same insofar as it relates to confiscation of 25 bags of boiled rice and consequently to disburse the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice.

2. The petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with paddy and rice and he has also been running rice mill in the name and style of 'Aruna Lakshmi Rice Mill' at Dindukal for several years. After receiving the order for purchase of 320 bags of boiled rice from another license trader of Jothi Stores, Erumadu, the petitioner sold 320 bags of boiled rice and by issuing valid bill Nos. 6 & 7, dated 02.07.1996, the same was transported in two lorries bearing registration Nos. Py-01-E-2034 and TN-27-V-2745 by loading 160 bags rice in each lorry. Unfortunately, when the first lorry left the petitioner's destination, on its way, the same was seized by the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID, Coodalore at Paraliyar and the second lorry was seized by the Revenue officers while it was parked nearby the road side, since the same got breakdown and therefore, under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent and upon enquiry it was found that rice was properly transported through licence and permission, from concerned Authorities, and thereafter he released the lorry and goods insofar as it relates to PY-01-E-2035 but in respect of the second lorry bearing registration No. TN-27-V-2745, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. Na.Ka.K.2/SR/100/96, dated 23.10.1996 confiscated 155 bags of boiled rice.

3. Aggrieved by the above said order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 6(c) of Essential Commodities Act, before the 1st respondent herein. After perusal of the relevant records, having found that it was not a smuggling case, the appeal was partly allowed and the confiscation of rice was reduced from 155 bags of boiled rice to 25 bags of boiled rice by releasing the remaining 130 bags of boiled rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004. Aggrieved by the said order forfeiting only 25 bags of boiled rice, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made only two submissions. Firstly, the respondents having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to receive 155 bags of boiled rice, the respondents are liable to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice as on the date of seizure of the rice. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court, reported in : AIR 1998 Madras 22 (Lakshmi Rice Mills and Anr. v. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Ors.), wherein this Court has held that the valuation of the goods seized shall be ascertained in terms of the then market value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure. Secondly, he has also urged that once the respondent comes to the conclusion that the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be allowed in respect of 130 bags of boiled rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, the confiscation of only 25 bags of boiled rice cannot be legally maintainable or tenable. On that basis it was further argued that the petitioner is entitled to have the value of 160 bags of boiled rice as on the date of seizure of the boiled rice.

5. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner while appearing before the appellate authority though he was able to explain with the relevant bills and vouchers for having purchased 130 bags of boiled rice, he miserably failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers in respect of 25 bags of boiled rice. Therefore, the 1st respondent while returning 130 bags of boiled rice declined to return 25 bags of boiled rice since the petitioner failed to satisfy the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by production of valid evidence in support of his claim therefor. In this view of the matter, it was further contended that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be interfered with. If at all, this Court finds any reasonable point in favour of the petitioner for receiving 25 bags of boiled rice, the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority and upon further production of acceptable evidence, the question of returning of 25 bags of boiled rice would be decided by the first appellate authority and on that basis she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was found to be only of 130 bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority, namely, the 1st respondent herein. When the appellate authority has categorically held that the petitioner is the owner to the extent of 130 bags of boiled rice, out of 155 bags of boiled rice, it come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to receive 130 bags of boiled rice for the reason that he was able to produce acceptable evidence in support of his claim to the satisfaction of the appellate authority at the time of enquiry by producing bills, vouchers, etc. When the 1st respondent, appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of 130 bags of boiled rice, the refusal of returning 25 bags of boiled rice by the appellate authority is not supported by any reason. Further, it is neither the case of the respondents nor the appellate authority that the petitioner has smuggled the rice in the above said vehicle. If it is so, the appellate authority would not have returned the vehicle as well as the rice namely, 130 bags of boiled rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004. Once the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner of the 155 bags of boiled rice and also came forward to pay the value of the boiled rice as per the Judgment of this Court, reported in AIR 1998 Madras 22 (Lakshmi Rice Mills and Anr. v. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Ors.), the petitioner is entitled to receive the then prevailing market value of the goods seized by the 2nd respondent at the time of seizure. Almost in a similar circumstance, His Lordship Raju, J. as he then was, in W.P. Nos. 12485 to 12488 dated 25.02.1992 observed as follows:

I am of the view that the legitimate rights of a citizen to have his property restored or its market value reimbursed cannot be denied on the plea that there is no specific provision in the Act to provide for such restitution or reimbursement. The right of a citizen in this regard is secured under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order insofar as the respondent directs the payment of the value of the bags seized and disposed of at the levy price rate shall stand hereby quashed and consequently there shall be a direction to the second respondent to pay the respective petitioners the value ascertained in terms of the then prevailing market value of paddy in open market....

I am of the view that the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case.

8. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. While doing so, the respondents are directed to pay the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.