Abdul Mannaf vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the claim of the petitioner for interim zimma of the seized paddy should be settled expeditiously and judiciously to prevent damage to the articles and loss to the owner, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat. The Court found that while the petitioner submitted a Xerox copy of a receipt from Aamjonga Anchalik Unnayon Samiti for the purchase of 144 bags of paddy, the Investigating Officer failed to collect any document confirming this purchase during the investigation. Furthermore, the receipt did not indicate the location of the Aamjonga Anchalik Samiti, and the case diary was silent regarding the existence of such a wholesale dealer. The Court directed the learned Magistrate to decide the matter of lawful ownership and grant interim zimma as per the procedure provided in Section 451 Cr.P.C. within two weeks of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file an appropriate petition supported by original documents to enable the Magistrate to decide the claim afresh. The issue of whether the petitioner is the lawful owner of the seized paddy was not definitively decided but was remanded for expeditious adjudication by the Magistrate.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Mannaf, a businessman dealing in rice, is the owner of M/s Krishijana Kalyan Enterprise, registered under GST. On December 12, 2022, an FIR was lodged by an Inspector of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs alleging illegal storage of 144 bags of paddy (45 kg each) in the petitioner's godown. The paddy was seized, and Matia P.S. Case No. 151/2022 was registered under Sections 420/421/403/409 IPC read with Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner sought the release of the seized paddy from the Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, but his prayer was rejected as the court deemed the paddy necessary for further investigation and the petitioner failed to produce valid ownership documents. The petitioner claimed to have legally purchased the paddy from Aamjonga Anchalik Unnayon Samiti and possesses a receipt, asserting the paddy is perishable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized paddy, claimed by the petitioner as legally purchased and perishable, should be released to him on interim zimma, considering the ongoing investigation and the petitioner's alleged failure to produce valid ownership documents? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 420, 421, 403, 409 IPC, Section 7 of E.C. Act, and Section 451 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner is the lawful owner of the seized paddy, having purchased it legally from Aamjonga Anchalik Unnayon Samiti, evidenced by a receipt. The seized paddy is perishable and will decompose if stored for extended periods. The investigating officer has not provided specific reasons for requiring the rice for further investigation, and it does not appear to be government-allotted rice. The petitioner is a regular income tax payer and attorney holder of a rice mill where he converts paddy to rice. Revenue's arguments: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that perusal of the case diary revealed no document showing the petitioner as the lawful owner of the seized paddy.