Tara Singh vs Chandigarh Administration and ors.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the intervening night of 17/1821981, Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdit Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh, who were on patrol duty, received a secret information that a truck loaded with cement was moving about in the Transport Area, Chandigarh. A rukka was sent to the police station for registration of a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provisions of Chandigarh Cement (Licensing and Control) JUDGMENT 1972 and the police officials proceeded to Sector 26, where truck bearing No. P.U.R.3641 was seen moving. It was stopped in front of M/s Dashmesh Transport Company. One Balbir Singh, who was driving the truck, absconded, but Sita Ram, who was in the cabin was captured. There was 53 bags of cement in the truck. After completion of the investigation, Sita Ram was chargesheeted for an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. During trial, his contention was that he was an employee of M/s Dashmesh Transport Company, Chandigarh. The cement belonged to one Roop Lal, and it was to be taken to his house. After detecting the truck, the police called him and falsely implicated him in the case.

The trial Court perused the evidence heard the learned counsel for the parties and found that the case against Sita Ram was not free from doubt. Giving him benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charge, but an order confiscating the truck was passed by Shri O. P. Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. It is against this order dated 1121985 that Tara Singh filed the present revision petition

I have heard Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. S. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and have perused the record.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the truck, which was taken into possession by the police, belonged to Gurmit Singh and Bachan Singh. It was obtained on superdari by Gurmit Singh on 2121981. During the pendency of the trial, Gurmit Singh and Bachan Singh sold the truck to Tara Singh petitioner and the registration book was also got transferred in his name. He was owner of the truck, but before confiscating the learned trial Court did not issue any notice to him or to Gurmit Singh etc. The truck could not be confiscated without calling upon its owners and without providing them an opportunity to be heard. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case Sukhdev Raj v. The State, 1979 CLR (P & H), page 96. It was also a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the truck was confiscated. It was observed :

"It is a basic principle of natural justice that if any adverse order is to be passed against a person, it must be passed in his presence and he must be given an opportunity to defend himself."

It was further held :

"No doubt, under section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, the property can be confiscated and the Magistrate has hardly any option, but such an order should be passed in the presence of the parties."

In the present case, the owners of the truck were not a party to the main case nor there was any charge against them that the truck was being used for carrying cement in contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act with their knowledge and cogent. The person, who faced the charge, was acquitted and there were no finding that the provisions of the Act were contravened. In these circumstances, the truck could not be confiscated without calling upon its owners. It is well settled law that an order confiscating the conveyance should not be passed without giving an opportunity to the owner to prove that he did not know and had no reason to believe that any article was likely to be transported in the conveyance in question. The person, who had not committed any offence, should not be visited with penalty, unless he is given notice to show cause why the truck should not be confiscated. Such a person cannot be made liable for the misconduct of his employee. Bishan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1974 CLR page 258 is an authority on this point.

In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner or the original owners of the truck, namely Gurmit Singh and Bachan Singh were not given any notice by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to show cause why the truck should not be confiscated. Therefore, the order of confiscation of the truck cannot be sustained.

As result, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The truck in question is already in possession of the petitioner.