Sarmina Iasmin vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Dhubri, concerning the zimma and auction of the seized areca nuts. The Court held that the rejection of the zimma prayer was based on the areca nuts being unfit for human consumption and the claim not being verified by the SP as per the SOP. However, the petitioner had submitted documents proving ownership. The Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for zimma. The learned Trial Court will obtain an undertaking from the petitioner that the areca nuts, being unfit for human consumption, will be used solely for industrial purposes. Upon furnishing this undertaking, the Trial Court will verify the claim through the concerned SP's office and pass the zimma order accordingly. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sarmina Iasmin, claims ownership of areca nuts seized by the police. She stated that the areca nuts were purchased from the local market for her proprietorship, Hiya Enterprise, which has GST registration. However, due to a technical error, her husband could not collect the GST bill at the time of purchase, and he was subsequently arrested. The truck carrying the areca nuts was seized while parked, and the driver was reportedly about to collect an E-way bill. The petitioner filed a petition before the JMFC, Dhubri, seeking zimma (custody) of the seized areca nuts. The JMFC rejected her prayer, citing a Food Analyst's report that the areca nuts were unfit for human consumption and the petitioner's failure to provide an undertaking for industrial use only. The petitioner contended she was not given an opportunity to provide such an undertaking as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned JMFC, Dhubri, erred in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for zimma of the seized areca nuts without affording her an opportunity to provide an undertaking for industrial use, as required by the SOP? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of the SOP and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that she is the rightful owner of the seized areca nuts and that her prayer for zimma was rejected without giving her a chance to file an undertaking as per Clause 15 of the SOP. She expressed readiness to file such an undertaking. Revenue's arguments: The State submitted that the petitioner failed to produce documents for industrial sale or obtain proper orders from the SP office. However, they noted that no auction had been initiated yet and stated they had no objection if the petitioner filed an application with an undertaking, which could be verified by the SP.