1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate of Serampore regarding disposal of 256 bags of rice and 105 bags of paddy seized by the police in connection With a case under section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under section 7(1)(a) (ii) of Act X of 1955. It appears that the nine petitioners had purchased the seized rice and paddy and were carrying them in two trucks when the police seized the stock. The report of the officer-in-charge of Jangipara Police Station sent to the sub-divisional officer of Serampore on December 9, 1966, states that the seizure was made under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to proceed under section 55 of the Code read with section 7(1)(a) (ii) of Act X of 1955.
2. The seizure list in respect of the seizure is not on the record.
3. Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the Rule produced before me carbon copies of the two seizure lists which were apparently made over to his clients by the police officer concerned. It appears from the seizure list that along with the rice and paddy that was seized, the police also seized the cash memos in respect thereof and also the tokens representing applications for licences under the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1966 made by the Government under the Essential Supplies Act which requires taking out of licence for dealer who wants to deal in rice or paddy in the non-rationed areas. In view of the cash memos and these tokens, it does not appear how the rice and paddy could have been seized at all.
4. The record of the magistrate shows that after the seizure, the nine petitioners filed an application before him praying that the rice and paddy seized be handed back to them. The learned magistrate sent the petition to the court inspector for a report. The court inspector reported that—
“No case appears to have yet been started over the matter.
The seizure shows that the petitioners have purchased their respective rice and paddy on the strength of the token issued by S.D.F & S., Howrah Sadar.
The report of O.C Jangipara may kindly be perused and necessary order passed.”
5. The learned magistrate's attention does not appear to have been drawn to this report of the court inspector, nor to the seizure lists in the case and that is why he observed in his order dated April 21, 1966, that—
“……..the petitioners have fail ed to prove that they submitted an ap plication for a licence to and obtained a receipt in acknowledgment thereof from the licensing authority.”
6. That they had really done so and that the purchase had been made in accordance with law would have been apparent if the learned magistrate had directed his attention to the report of the court inspector and to the seizure lists in the case.
7. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the State concedes that if the petitioners were in possession of tokens representing their applications for licences, the rice and paddy in this case were not liable to be seized. As from the record there is no question that they were in possession of the tokens, the seizure of the stock of rice and paddy along with the tokens and cash memos appears to be an act of extreme high-handedness and the learned magistrate also appears to have been a party to that act when without entering into the matter he passed the order the propriety whereof is challenged in this rule.
8. The order purporting to dispose of the paddy that was passed by the learn ed magistrate is apparently an illegal order and must accordingly be struck down.
9. The rule is made absolute. The order moved against is set aside and the learned magistrate is directed to make over the seized stock of rice and paddy to the persons from whose custody they were seized forthwith.
10. The records be sent down immediately.
S.N.G