Afzal Hussain vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the seized rice belonged to the petitioner and was being duly transported by him. The Court considered the IO's report, which verified the petitioner's ownership of the business, his trade license, and the fact that the rice was transported with due authorization and payment of GST. The Court found that the initial apprehension by local people and subsequent registration of the FIR under IPC and EC Act were based on suspicion, which was dispelled by the investigation. The Court opined that the seized rice should be released to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the release of the seized rice to the petitioner upon execution of a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The criminal revision petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, Afzal Hussain, is the owner of Zeesham Trading business. He was transporting 560 packets of 'A' Grade quality rice in a truck bearing registration number AS-01-GC-8526. The vehicle was apprehended by local people who suspected it to be stolen. The police seized the truck and rice, and registered Changsari PS Case No. 411/2020 under Sections 120B/420/380 IPC, read with Section 7 of the EC Act. The petitioner's employee stated that the rice was transported with payment of GST and proper challans. The investigating officer (IO) concluded that the petitioner was authorized to transport the rice, and it was neither stolen nor PDS rice. The petitioner's prayer for zimma (release of seized goods) was rejected by the learned SDJM, Rangiya, due to initiation of confiscation proceedings. This revision petition challenges the SDJM's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned SDJM, Rangiya, was justified in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for zimma of the seized rice, considering the initiation of confiscation proceedings? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of criminal procedure and confiscation laws). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seized rice belonged to him and was being transported legally with proper documentation, including payment of GST and challans. The IO's report supported this, indicating the rice was not stolen or PDS rice. Therefore, the seized goods should be released to him. Revenue's arguments: The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued that the rejection of the zimma prayer was justified because confiscation proceedings had been initiated. This implies the State believed there was a basis for confiscation, likely related to the initial suspicion of theft or illegal transportation.