1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 799 of 2025 1 - Karan Kesharwani S/o Manoj Kesharwani, R/o Village Domanhill, Chirmiri, Thana And Tahsil Chirmiri Distt. M.C.B. C.G 2 - Vivek Singh S/o Buddhu Singh, R/o Village Domanhill, Chirmiri, Thana And Tahsil Chirmiri Distt. M.C.B. C.G 3 - Amrit Gupta S/o Pancham Gupta, R/o Village Domanhill, Chirmiri, Thana And Tahsil Chirmiri Distt. M.C.B. C.G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Food Officer, District, Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Jon Order on Board 27.10. 202 5 1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirmiri, District, Koriya, in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2025 arising out of order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Collector, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (in short, MCB) in Revenue Case No. 202408330100030/B-121/2023-24 by which 90 Quintals of Rice and 2.5 Quintals of Gram have been confiscated and Criminal Appeal has been dismissed. 2 2. Leaned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 19.08.2024 total 90 Quintals of Rice and 2.5 Quintals of Gram belonging to Public Distribution System were seized by the officers of Food and Police Department from three vehicles which were parked outside the house of petitioner No.2-Vivek Singh. A report was submitted by the Food Officer, District MCB to District Collector, MCB on 29.08.2024 for initiation of confiscation proceeding of the seized commodities. On 29.08.2024 show cause notices were issued to the petitioners for their appearance on 05.09.2024. On 05.09.2024 the petitioners appeared before the Collector, MCB and filed their reply. They also filed application for grant of interim custody of seized commodities on 09.09.2024. Thereafter, the Collector, MCB issued notices to M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries, Lalpur who also filed its reply on 17.09.2024. On that day itself the petitioners were heard on their applications for grant of interim custody of seized commodities and the case was fixed for passing of order. On 01.10.2024 the Collector, MCB passed the final order of confiscation by which the seized commodities of 90 Quintals of Rice and 2.5 Quintals of Gram have been confiscated. 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that instead of passing interim order of custody of seized commodities the Collector, MCB has passed the final order without providing any opportunity to produce their evidence with respect to said commodities and its entitlement. He would also submit that the vehicles have not been confiscated and were given to their respective owners. From reply of 3 M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries is transpires that they have admitted that they have sold the said commodities to petitioners and without affording any opportunity of producing their evidence or cross examination of the witnesses, the order has been passed by the Collector confiscating the commodities that too at the stage of hearing the case on application for grant of interim custody of commodities. He would also submit that the revisional court has also mechanically passed the order in appeal filed by the petitioners before it vide order dated 23.04.2025 and thereby the Collector as well as the appellate court both have committed illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned orders and the same may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that after calling reply from the petitioners as well as M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries from whom the petitioners are said to have purchased the said commodities, the order has been passed by the Collector, MCB confiscating the seized commodities. The Collector as well as the revisional court have rightly decided the case on the basis of material produced by the parties before it and there is no infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this court. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of Collector, MCB. 6. It transpires from the order sheet of the Collector that on 29.08.2024 notices were issued to the petitioners upon which they filed their rely on 05.09.2024 and thereafter on 09.09.2024 the petitioners have filed applications for grant of interim custody of seized commodities and on 4 that day itself a show cause notice was issued to M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries, Lalpur, Manendragarh, to file his reply, to which the said firm filed its reply 17.09.2024. On that day itself the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for passing of order. On 01.10.2024 the final order has been passed confiscating the said commodities. 7. True it is that the order passed by the Collector is based on the reply submitted by the respective parties. From perusal of reply submitted by the petitioners it transpires that they have stated in their reply that they purchased the said commodities from M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries, Lalpur, Manendragarh whereas M/s Kalpataru Agro Industries, in its reply have also admitted that they sold the seized commodities to the petitioners, yet Collector, MCB have held in paragraph-4 of its order that non applicants i.e. the petitioners herein could not prove by their reply and documents that seized commodities are not the commodities belonging to Public Distribution System. 8. Be that as it may, this court observes that before passing an order of confiscation of seized commodities, opportunity to prove their respective case ought to have been provided to the parties concerned to prove their defence and procurement of seized commodities from them. The other parties were having ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by one party and no prejudice were going to be caused to any of the parties if opportunity of leading evidence would have been provided to the parties concerned. Leading evidence and cross examination are the integral part in the interest of justice. 5 9. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the proceedings drawn by the Collector, MCB, this court is of the opinion that the matter may be remitted back to Collector, MCB with a direction to provide opportunity of leading evidence to the parties concerned to prove their case and thereafter the Collector shall pass a fresh order in the case. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by Collector, MCB and order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chirmiri are set aside. The matter is remitted back to Collector, MCB to pass a fresh order after providing proper opportunity of leading evidence to respective parties in support of their respective claims over the seized commodities. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present Criminal Revision is allowed. Clause-5.2 of the order dated 01.10.2024 shall remain intact. The record of Collector as well as appellate court be sent back along with copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Collector, MCB on 24.11.2025. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder