I have gone through the 7.7.2012 passed
by the trial court and the other material placed on
record. It is an admitted fact that Mustard 22551
bags, wheat 15764 bags, Dhania 458 Bags, Soyabin
173 bags, being
of perishable nature, cannot be
kept in seizure for a long time and keeping this in
view the Investigating Officer filed application
under section 457 Cr.P.C. for auctioning the
perishable agricultural products before the trial
court.A bare perusal of the above finding would
make it clear that there is no perversity in the
order passed by the trial court on the application
filed by the Investigating Officer. I am in
agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial
court in the order dated 7.7.2012. The order dated
7.7.2012 passed bythe trial court is in accordance
with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
mentioned above and the rulings cited above of the
Apex court.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2326/2012
Neeraj Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan
---
10.10.2012
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
REPORTABLE
Citation;2013 CR L J 372 Rajasthan
This criminal misc. petition has been filed
under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated
7.7.2012
passed
by
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate Ramganj Mandi District Kota in FIR No.
43/11 Police Station Bapawar Kalan District Kota
(Rural)
section
457
Cr.P.C
'wherewithal'
the
application filed by the investigating officer in
relation to auction of the seized
property was
allowed in crass and grotesque contravention of the
mandate of legal sanction of section 457 Cr.P.C.
2.
Brief and relevant facts are that on
resident
of
Gehukheri
6.5.2011
Nawal
Kishore
submitted a written report containing signatures of
33 agriculturists to the SHO Bapawar Kalan alleging
therein that Purshottam Mittal, Sumit Mittal, Vimal
Mittal, Dinesh Mittal and Hukam Chand Mittal @ Naya
Baniya' sons of Bhanwar Lal Mahajan, residents of
Bapawar Kalan and their
Muneem Shyam Bihari
purchased their grains and agricultural products on
credit and kept the same in the godowns.
It was
alleged that they were
absconded after giving
Kacchi Parchi ( receipt) of the grains thereby
committing fraud and cheating with these farmers.
On the basis of the said report a case FIR No.
43/2011 was registered for offence under sections
420, 406 IPC and investigation commenced. During
investigation about
418 farmers informed that
their agricultural products worth Rs.
9.0 crores
was given in trust
to the accused Purshottam
Mittal, Sumit Mittal, Vimal Mittal, Dinesh Mittal,
Hukam Chand Mittal for keeping them in godowns of
Bapawar.
The accused persons were
doing their
business in Krishi Mandi and they after winning
the faith of the farmers, took their agricultural
products for keeping it in the godowns by giving
assurance
that whenever the prices of the
respective
agricultural
products
would
be
increasesses, the same would be sold and payments
would be made to the respective farmers. The
investigating officer seized the slips produced by
the farmers, recorded the statements of the
farmers, also collected the records from the Krishi
Mandi Samiti and Axis Bank and recorded statements
of other witnesses and since a prima facie case was
found against all the five accused efforts were
made to search and arrest them. The agricultural
products which the accused persons taken from the
famrers on trust were kept in four godowns in
Bapawar Kalan.
Out of these four
godowns, three
godowns belong to the accused ,while one godown has
been stated to be taken on rent. The agricultural
products belong to the
farmers
kept in these
godowns (warehouses) is weighing about
57911
quintals.
The
farmers
stated
that
these
agricultural produces were not belong to firms. The
accused persons in the
first instance they have
transferred
in papers the agricultural produce in
the names of their firms being run in the name of
their family members. On the basis of these
transferred papers they prepared cash bills of
purchase and sale of the agricultural products in
question and on that basis of such forged bills
taken a loan of about Rs. 9.00 crores from the Axis
3
Bank. The entire
stock of the agricultural
products was kept in mortgage with the Axis Bank.
Prima facie
it is evident
that the accused
Purshotam Mittal, Sumit Mittal, Vimal Mittal,
Dinesh Mittal, Hukam Chand Mittal @ Naya
Baniya
and accused Mahendra Goyal, Dheeraj Goyal and
Neeraj Goyal by criminal conspiracy mortgaged the
agricultural
products kept in the godowns by the
poor
farmers
on
trust
thereby
grabbing
the
agricultural
products
of
the
poor
farmers
dishonestly and by cheating and committing breach
of trust, committed offences punishable under
sections 420, 406 and 120 B IPC.
3.
The accused persons Purshottam Mittal, Hukam
Chand, Sumit Mittal, Vimal Mittal and Dinesh Mittal
were
arrested
on
20.10.2011
from
Bangalore
(karnataka ) and on the basis of the information of
the accused, the agricultural products lying in the
godowns at Bapawar were seized and taken in
possession of the Police
under section 27 of the
Evident Act. After investigation charge sheet was
filed
against
these
accused
persons
in
the
competent court at Sangod on 19.12.2011 and since
accused Mahendra Goyal, Dheeraj Goyal and Neeraj
Goyal were absconding, investigation against them
was contineud in terms of section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
On 30.12.2011 accused Mahendra Goyual and and
Neeral Goyal were arrested from Indore (MP).
On
investigation from the accused records relating to
purchase and sale of firm Mohan Lal and Sons and
Seth M.L. Goyal and Sons was seized. From the
record it is prima facie appeared that the accused
persons by committing a criminal conspiracy made
forged transactions of purchase and sales of
agricultural products belonging
to the poor
farmers lying in the godowns at Bapawar worth Rs.
9.0 crores and by committing
breach of trust,
pledged the said agricultural products with Axis
4
Bank for taking huge loans
as a result of which
about
623 farmers are suffering and regularly
agitating against the accused.
Challan against
accused Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Neeraj Kumar Goyal
has also already been filed in the competent court
at Sangod on 21.3.2012. The accused Dheeraj Goyal
proprietor of Seth M.L. Goyal and Sons is still
absconding.
With regard to the agricultural
products seized on the information of the accused
i.e. Mustard 22551 bags, wheat 15764 bags, Dhania
458 Bags, Soyabin 173 bags, being
of perishable
nature the investigating officer i.e. Additional
Superintendent of Police Kota Rural moved an
application under section 457 Cr,P.,C. before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ramganj Mandi
seeking
permission
for
auction
of
the
said
agricultural products.
The trial
court after
hearing the investigating officer as also the
counsels for the parties vide its order dated
7.7.2012 ordered for auction of the agricultural
products in larger interest of all concerned
parties. The trial court while exercising the
section 457
jurisdiction vested in it under
Cr.P.C. has passed a detailed and reasoned order
after taking into consideration all relevant facts
particularly the fact that in view of the on going
rainy season, there is all possibility of decaying
The trial court also
the agricultural products.
discussed in detail the authorities cited by both
the parties.
4.
Mr. Suresh Sahni,learned counsel appearing
for the accused petitioner has contended that
allowing the application of the Investigating
Officer is legally on untenable grounds. The trial
court has passed the impugned order in crass and
grotesque
and
in
contravention
of
the
law,
therefore
the impugned order deserves to be
quashed and set aside. The trial court while
5
passing the
impugned order has exceeded the
jurisdiction
by
taking
into
consideration
of
various other facts which were not germane for the
real decision of the case. He further argued that
it is
settled law
that while dealing with the
issue arising out of the mandate of section 457
Cr.P.C. sine qua non is the person entitled to the
possession but sadly the
trial court missed this
aspect of the matter and passed the order in a
manner which is unknown to the sound principles of
law. He has further stated that bare reading of the
impugned
order
reveals
completely
and
trial court has taken
uncontrovertibly that the
into consideration the various those circumstances
which were not germane rather the petitioner
submits that while trial court embraced the power
of the executing court as there was a civil decree
for execution before it and totally missed the
complete and conclusive mandate of law arising out
of section 457 Cr.P.C.
The impugned order is per
se bad as the trial court has not given any finding
or observation in relation to the entitlement of
the persons of the seized property and in absence
of it impugned order does not stand the scrutiny of
law to the legal merits to the total.
The trial
court has not only misread but also misinterpreted
the various authorities submitted before it and
passed the impugned order contrary to the law,
therefore the impugned order is hit by article 141
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
In
these
circumstances
it was prayed that the order dated
7.7.2012 may be quashed and set aside.
5.
Mr. G.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor along
with the investigating officer and assisted by
other advocates, has argued that the trial court
while exercising the
jurisdiction vested in it
under
section 457 Cr.P.C. has passed a detailed
and reasonsed order after taking into consideration
6
all relevant facts
particularly the fact that in
view of the on going rainy season, there is all
possibility of decaying the agricultural products.
The trial court also discussed in detail the
authorities cited by both the parties.
The
challenged made by the petitioner to the
order
dated 7.7.2012 by filing the present misc. petition
is not sutainable as none of the
ground taken by
the petitioner jutify the invocation of inherent
jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned counsel has placed
reliance on Jugal Kishore vs. Babulal 1982 Cr./L.R.
(Raj.) 671 and State of Bihar and another vs.
Arvind Kumar and another ( 2012 (2) WLC (SC Cr.
369.
6.
It may be mentioned that this court on
17.9.2012 rejected the application under section
482 Cr.PC. Of the Axis Bank Limited filed through
Regional Office at 2nd Floor Plot No. 402 Lane No.2
Raja Park, Jaipur for permission to be impleaded as
respondent party. The order dated 17.9.2012 reads
as under :
“ In this matter arising out of
application
under
section
457
Cr.P.C. filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor, an application ( 8364)
has been filed by applicant Axix
Bank with the prayer that it may be
allowed to be impleaded as party
respondent in the petition.
Admittedly, the application on
which
the
impugned
order
dated
7.7.2012 has been passed was under
section 457 Cr.P.c. filed by the
Public Prosecutor, as such no other
person is necessary to be impleaded
as party to this petition.
As a
matter of fact, no person other than
the Public Prosecutor has any locus
in the matter. However, such person
may assist the Public Prosecutor.
Consequently, the application
(8364) is dismissed. Put up on
20.9.2012.”
7
7.
Therafter applicants Narendra and Chandra
Mohan filed applications with the prayer that they
may be allowed to be impleaded as party respondent
in the petition. On their
application this court
on 20.9.2012 passed the following order :
“ The matter comes up on an
application
(8557)
filed
by
the
applicants Narendra and Chandra Mohan
with the prayer
that they may be
allowed
to be impleaded
as party
respondent in the petition.
As the present matter arises out
of
application
under
section
457
Cr.P.C. Filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor, in my considered opinion,
no other
person is necessary to be
impleaded
as
a
party
to
this
petition.
However, such person
may
assist the learned Public Prosecutor,
if they so desire.
Put up on
27.9.2012.”
8.
This court on 27.9.2012 directed the counsel
place
on
record
the
for
the
petitioner
to
applications filed by him as well as the other side
in respect of Supurdagi of the goods. The matter
was directed to be taken up on 4.10.2012. On
4.10.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner
filed the photostat copy of the application dated
27.2.2012 of the Investigating Officer, reply to
the application dated 27.2.2012 filed by Neeraj
Goyal resident of A 27 Vallabh Nagar Kota,
application dated 2.4.2012 filed by Neeraj Goyal
before the trial court, the order dated 3.12.2011
passed by the trial court.
9.
It may also be mentioned that M/s. Axis Bank
filed a misc. petition No.2041/2010 and vide order
of this court dated 30.11.2010, this court passed
the following order :
“ उभय पक्ष के िव ान अिधव ागण की सहमित के आधार पर
8
इस मामले म िन आदेश पािरत िकया जाता है :-
बक के गोदाम म रखे गये माल का बैचान सावर्जिनक
नीलामी के माध्यम से िनयमानुसार िव ापन पकािशत कर िकया
जावेगा।
2.उ माल के बेचान से ा रािश की एफ.डी.
आर. बक के नाम रखी जावे,जमा रािश को िवचारण
न्यायालय से मामले के िनस्तारण तक खुदर् बुदर् नही की जावे।
ाथ की ओर से स्तुत इस दांिडक िविवध यािचका
िनस्तारण िकया जाता है िक मिजस् ेट म 2 उतर कोटा क्षरा
पािरत आदेश् िदनांक 14.10.2010 एंव 22.10.2010
को पांतिरत करते हुए उपरो ानुसार िकया जाता है। ाथ की
ओर से स्तुत स्थगन ाथर्नाप िनरस्त िकया जाता है। “
10.
It may also be mentioned that in the order
dated 7.7.2012 the trial court in para No.5 of the
operative part of the order mentioned as under :
“ 5. एिक्सस बक के ारा जो ऋण अिभयु गण महेन् ,
नीरज व धीरज को िदया गया है उस ऋण के बाबत गारन्टी हेत
बक िविध अनुसार कायर्वाही कर सके गा और अिभयु गण की
अन्य सम्पित िगरवी रखने या कु कर् करने बाबत िविध अनुसार
कायर् करने के िलए सक्षम रहेगा।"
Thus it is clear that the Axis Bank has
already been given rights to get the property of
the accused persons by way of guarantee in
accordance with law.
11.
It may also be mentioned that on the
criminal misc. petition filed by the accused
persons
being
S.B.Criminal
Misc.
petition
No.3170/2011, this court passed the following order
on 3.11.2011 :
“अनुसंधान अिधकारी आज ि श: न्यायालय म उपिस्थत ह
िजन्होने न्यायालय के समक्ष कथन िकया है िक करण म पॉच
अिभयु ो को िगरफतार िकया जा चुका है एवं उनकी िनशादेहीस
माल भी ज िकया गया है। िजन्हे िनदश िदया जाता है िक वह
करण म िविध की अपेिक्षत अपेक्षाओ के अनुसार स्वतं , िनष्पक्ष
एवं गहनता पूवर्क अनुसंधान करगे। करण म कोई भी अिभय
साक्षी बन सकता है एवं कोई भी साक्षी अिभयु बन सकता है। इस
तथ्य पर भी करण म अनुसंधान करते समय गौर करगे तथा
अनुसधान की गित िरपोटर् पन् ह िदन की अविध म सम्बिन्धत
दण्डनायक के समक्ष स्तुत करे ग। “
12.
Before proceeding further it would be
necessary to have a look at the judgments of the
Apex Court and the provisions of section 457 and
459 Cr.P.C.
Section 457 and 459 Cr.P.C. which are
relevant for the present controversy read as under:
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of
property.— (1) Whenever the seizure of
property by any police officer is reported
to a Magistrate under the provisions of
this Code, and such property is not
produced before a Criminal Court during an
inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make
such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery
of such property to the person entitled to
the possession thereof, or if such person
cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known,
the Magistrate may order the property to
be delivered to him on such conditions (if
any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if
such person is unknown, the Magistrate may
detain it and shall, in such case, issue a
proclamation specifying the articles of
which
such
property
consists,
and
requiring any person who may have a claim
thereto,
to
appear
before
him
and
establish his claim within six months from
the date of such proclamation.
459. Power to sell perishable property.—
If the person entitled to the possession
of such property is unknown or absent and
the property is subject to speedy and
natural decay, or if the Magistrate to
whom its seizure is reported is of opinion
that its sale would be for the benefit of
the owner, or that the value of such
property is less than 1[five hundred
rupees], the Magistrate may at any time
direct it to be sold; and the provisions
of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly
as may be practicable, apply to the net
proceeds of such sale.
The Apex Court
in Satnam Agro Industries v.
State of Punjab, (2008) 15 SCC 784, at page 785 :
“2. This Court on 9-9-2008 had given a
proposal to the counsel for the parties
to the effect that paddy/rice, which is a
perishable item lying in the court
10
custody, be sold by public auction to be
conducted by the Court to avoid any
further loss and the sale proceeds be
deposited in the Court and the Court
shall keep the said amount in a fixed
deposit receipt in a nationalised bank to
earn interest on the said amount. But in
the meantime, complaint filed by M/s
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd. (in short “PUNSUP”) and declaration
suit may continue and on the end of the
proceedings whosoever is found entitled
shall get the sale proceeds received by
public
auction
along
with
interest
accrued thereon. It was made clear to all
the parties that whosoever would be
responsible for causing loss should make
good the difference of the actual amount
minus the sale proceeds to the other
party along with interest as directed by
the Court.
3. Today, Ms Jayashree Wad, learned
counsel appearing for PUNSUP, submits
that the said proposal for selling the
paddy/rice
by
public
auction
is
acceptable
to
the
Corporation.
She
further submits that the amount so
recovered from the open auction shall not
be
paid
to
the
appellant
without
furnishing bank guarantee.
4. We have gone through the judgment of
the High Court impugned in this appeal.
Looking to the facts of the case and the
controversy involved, we in the interest
of both the parties order that the
paddy/rice presently lying in the court
custody
at
Guruharsahai,
District
Ferozepur shall be put to public auction.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ferozepur
shall
conduct
the
public
auction with the help of the Collector of
the
district
or
any
other
officer
authorised by the Collector, after giving
due publicity to the prospective auction-
purchasers as per the procedure adopted
by the Executive Officer concerned. The
sale proceeds received from such auction,
initially shall be paid to the appellant,
M/s Satnam Agro Industries subject to the
condition that the appellant firm shall
furnish bank guarantee for the said
amount
before
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ferozepur.
The
process of auction shall be finalised
within six weeks from this order. All
rights and contentions raised by the
parties before us are left open for the
decision of the appropriate authority in
11
appropriate proceedings. We hope that the
civil suit and the criminal proceedings
pending in the respective courts shall be
expeditiously decided.”
The Apex Court in State of Bihar and anr. vs.
Arvind Kumar (2012 (2) WLC (SC) Cr. 369
held as
under :
6.
The EC Act was enacted to
safeguard
the
public
interest
considering it necessary in the interests
of the general public to control the
production, supply and distribution of,
trade
and
commerce
in,
certain
commodities through the legislation. It
was in the light of the aforesaid public
policy that Section 3 of the EC Act
empowered
the Government to issue
notifications and once a notification is
issued,
it
enables
the
competent
authority to confiscate the goods under
Section 6- A and prosecution leading to
punishment provided under Section 7 of
the EC Act. The Collector has been
empowered under Section 6-A, if it is
found to be expedient to sell the seized
commodity
which
is
subject
to
natural decay, at a controlled price or
by
public
auction
or
dispose
of
through Public Distribution System to
avoid
artificial
shortages,
maintain the price
line
and
secure
equitable
distribution
thereof
through fair price shops as it
is
in
the
interest
of
the
general
public.
7.
Admittedly, the High Court has
not even
taken
a
prima
facie view
that
the
State
Government
had
not
issued
twice
any
order/notification under Section 3 of
EC
Act
though
the
FIR
made
reference to clause 6(a) of the Public
Distribution
System
(Control) Order,
2001 issued under Section 3 of
the
EC
Act.
Respondent also referred to the
said Control Order 2001 in Para 3 of the
Crl.W.J.C. No. 215 of 2011 filed by them.
More so, the question of ownership
of
the goods seized is a question of fact
which ought not to have
been
gone
into
by
the
High
Court
in
its
revisional
or
extra-ordinary
jurisdiction. Further, there is nothing
on record on the basis of which the issue
of ownership has been decided
by the
High Court.
There
was no cogent
material on record before the High Court
on
the
basis
of which direction to
release the goods so seized could be
issued.
8. We are at pains to observe that
the High Court has dealt with the issue
in most casual and caviler manner without
any application of mind showing complete
disregard
of
the
legislature
enacting
the provisions for general
welfare.
9. This Court while dealing with a
similar issue in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala
v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1990) 3
SCC
549,
held
that whenever any
essential commodity is seized, pending
confiscation
under Section 6-A, the
Collector
has
no
power
to
order
release of the
commodity in favour of
the owner. Having regard to the
scheme
of
the Act, the object and purpose of
the statute and the mischief it seeks to
guard, it was further held that the word
“release” in Section 6-E is used in the
limited sense of
release for sale etc.
so that the same becomes available to
the consumer public.
The court held as
under:
“...
No
unqualified
and
unrestricted
power
has
been
conferred on the Collector of releasing
the
commodity
in
the sense of
returning it to the owner or person from
whom it was seized even before the
proceeding
for
confiscation
stood
completed and before the termination of
the
prosecution
in
the
acquittal of the offender. Such a view
would render Clause (b) of Section 7(1)
totally nugatory and
would
completely
defeat the purpose and object of the Act.
The
view
that
the
Act
itself
contemplates a situation which
would
render
Section
7(1)(b)
otiose where the essential commodity is
disposed
of
by
the
Collector under Section 6-A(2)
is
misconceived.
Section
6-A
does not empower the Collector to give an
option
to
pay,
in lieu
of
confiscation
of
essential
commodity,
13
a
fine
not exceeding the market value
of the
commodity
on
the
date
of
seizure, as in the case of any animal,
vehicle,
vessel
or
other
conveyance
seized
along
with
the
essential
commodity.
Only
a
limited power of sale of the commodity in
the manner prescribed by Section 6-A(2)
is granted. The power conferred by
Section 6-
A(2) to sell the essential
commodity has
to
be
exercised
in
public
interest
for
maintaining
the
supplies and
for
securing
the
equitable distribution of the essential
commodity.”
The said judgment was followed and
approved
by
this
Court after
explaining the scope of the statutory
provisions in
Oma
Ram
v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 502.
10.
What we found shocking in the
instant case is that the petition
was
filed
before
the
High
Court
for
quashing
of
the
FIR
and
alternatively for releasing the seized
items
and
the
High
Court
without
giving any reason whatsoever disposed of
the petition observing as under:
“Considering the submissions of the
parties,
in
the
opinion
of
the court, continuing the seizure of the
seized items for a long time may not
be justified at least the seizure of
the wheat.”
This is the only reason given by
the
High
Court
without
even
considering what were the averments on
behalf of the
parties
and without
considering
the
requirement
of
the
statutory provisions.
11. In the subsequent order dealing
with the ownership of the wheat the High
Court has only taken note of the fact
that as the
respondents herein were
prepared to furnish
adequate/sufficient
security
to
the satisfaction of the
court below for release of the wheat in
question, the wheat could have been
released by the CJM. In case the learned
CJM
came
to
the
conclusion
after
14
appreciating the evidence on
record
that the respondents/applicants were not
in a position to show any
document
which may show their ownership to the
wheat, there was no justification for the
High Court to
issue directions for
release
of
such
material merely
because
applicant
could
furnish
the
security. If it is so, any stranger
or
third
party
may
give sufficient
security
and
get
the
seized
goods
release in his favour. Such a course
is not permissible even while
deciding
the
application
under Section 451/457
of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973.
A person having no title/
ownership over the seized material may
get
the same released on furnishing
security and sell it in
black
market
and earn profit several times more than
the amount of security furnished by
him. We fail to understand as how such an
order of release which defeat the very
purpose for which the EC Act was enacted,
could be passed.
13.
I have gone through the 7.7.2012 passed
by the trial court and the other material placed on
record. It is an admitted fact that Mustard 22551
bags, wheat 15764 bags, Dhania 458 Bags, Soyabin
173 bags, being
of perishable nature, cannot be
kept in seizure for a long time and keeping this in
view the Investigating Officer filed application
under section 457 Cr.P.C. for auctioning the
perishable agricultural products before the trial
court.
In the order dated 7.7.2012, the trial
court observed as under :
“11.जहाँ तक हस्तगत करण म ज कृ िष उपज के कब्जे क
संबंध म
है, यह स्वीकायर् तथ्य है िक अिभयु गण्फ की
िनशादेही और उनके ारा सा य अिधिनयम की धारा-27 क
तहत दी गई सूचना के आधार पर कृ िष उपज ज की गई है। कृ िष
उपज ज िकए जाने के समय अिभयु गण के कब्जे से ही ज हुई
थी जो स्टॉक रिजस्टर के आधार पर ज की थी न्यायालय के समक्ष
यह
करण के अिन्तम िनस्तारण के दौरान सामने आएगा िक
ज की गई संपि पर कब्जे के िलए सव म हकदार ि
कौन रहेगा क्यांिक ज की गई संपि आपरािधक न्यासभंग और
आपरािधक दु विनयोग की संपि अथार्त चुराई हुई संपि का
थम दृ या होना सामने आता है। ऐसी पिरिस्थित को ध्यान म
रखते हुए यह न्यायालय इस िनष्कषर् पर पहुंचता है िक न तो ज
15
कृ िष उपज का कब्जा पिरवादी पक्ष को स पा जा सकता है और न
ही वतर्मान िस्थित म अिभयु गण को स पा जा सकता है। करण
म ज कृ िष उपज पर एिक्सस बक के ारा भी ऋण िदया गया ह
और कृ िष उपज एिक्सस बक के यहां बतौर िगरवी रखी हुई है। इन
सब तथ्य एवं पिरिस्थितय को ध्यान म रखते हुए मेरी राय म
करण म ज की गई वस्तु को सावर्जिनक नीलामी के ारा
नीलाम कराई जाकर ा रािश बक म जमा कराया जाना
आवश्यक है। नीलामी म ा रािश बक म जमा कराई जाये और
नीलामी म ा रािश का िनस्तारण करण के अिन्तम िनस्तारण
िकए जाने के समय िकया जा सके गा। करण म ज कृ िष उपज की
नीलामी बाबत एक कमेटी भी बनाई जाना आवश्यक है िजसम
उपखण्ड स्तर के अिधकारी, एक पुिलस अिधकारी जो अनुसंधान
अिधकारी भी हो सकता है एवं एक ि अिभयु गण महेन् व
नीरज के ारा नािमत हो सकता है एवं एक ि पिरवादी पक्ष
जो पीिडत िकसान है। उनका हो सकता है। इसके अलावा सिचव
कृ िष उपज मंडी कोटा भी सदस्य होगा। एक सदस्य किन लेखकार
भी होना आवश्यक है। जो समस्त िहसाब रखेगा। उपखण्ड
अिधकारी सांगोद इस संबंध म उिचत कायर्वाही कर। इन सबको
िमलाकर एक कमेटी बना कर करण म ज कृ िष उपज को
सावर्जिनक नीलामी के ारा नीलामी के आदेश िदए जाना
न्यायसंगत है।"
14.
A bare perusal of the above finding would
make it clear that there is no perversity in the
order passed by the trial court on the application
filed by the Investigating Officer. I am in
agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial
court in the order dated 7.7.2012. The order dated
7.7.2012 passed bythe trial court is in accordance
with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
mentioned above and the rulings cited above of the
Apex court.
15.
For the reasons mentioned above and in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the order
passed by the trial court dated 7.7.2012 does not
call for any interference to prevent the abuse of
the process of the court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice in the inherent jurisdiction of
this court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
The order is
just and proper. The criminal misc. petition being
devoid of merit deserves to be rejected. It is
hereby rejected. The stay application also stands
disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment