Sanjit Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Held

The Court held that the seized wheat could be released in favor of the petitioner. The primary issue for consideration was whether the wheat could be released if the petitioner was willing to protect the State's interest. The Court opined that release was permissible. The reasoning was that the petitioner expressed willingness to furnish sufficient sureties to cover the value of the wheat, thereby safeguarding the State's financial interest during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings and the criminal case. The Collector was directed to release the wheat upon the petitioner furnishing adequate sureties to his satisfaction. The Court did not decide the ultimate fate of the confiscation proceeding or the criminal case, leaving those matters to be decided in their respective forums.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjit Kumar, a registered dealer in foodgrains, challenges an order dated 14.09.2018 by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The order directed the sale of 483 sealed and 137 open bags of wheat seized from the petitioner's godown on 25.05.2018. The seizure was based on allegations that the wheat was government-subsidized foodgrain. A criminal case (Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018) was registered under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner claims to be a registered GST dealer and that he was purchasing empty bags with 'FCI' markings for packing articles. The Collector, while noting the confiscation proceeding would be subject to the criminal case outcome, proceeded to order the sale of the seized wheat under Section 6/A of the Essential Commodities Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, was justified in ordering the sale of seized wheat during the pendency of a confiscation proceeding and a related criminal case, without a final determination of ownership or liability for confiscation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is a registered dealer and willing to furnish appropriate surety to protect the State's interest if the wheat is ultimately found liable for confiscation. He implied that the sale order was premature and that release of the goods against security would be a more appropriate interim measure. Revenue's contention: The State defended the Collector's order, citing the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was also incarcerated. However, the counter-affidavit did not provide prima facie evidence that the seized wheat was indeed government-subsidized foodgrain.