Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Traders Purani Galla Mandi,Guna vs State Of M.P. on 14 March, 2016
1 CRR.404/2010
(Om Traders Purani Galla Mandi Vs. State
of M.P. through Collector)
16.03.2016
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri B.P.S. Chauhan,Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/ State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (1) Applicant has filed the present criminal revision against the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in Criminal Appeal No.97/2010 whereby the matter was remanded so that an opportunity may be given to the applicant to adduce the evidence in confiscation proceedings.
(2) The facts of the case in short are that the Collector, Guna, vide order dated 08.03.2010 in Confiscation Case No.29/B/121/2009-10 directed to confiscate the entire Sugar under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (in short 'E.C. Act'). The applicant has filed a criminal appeal No.97/2010 and vide judgment dated 28.04.2010, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, has remanded the case so that the applicant may have an opportunity to defend the confiscation proceedings. (3) It appears that the applicant solely depends upon the order dated 27.10.2010 in Criminal Revision No.1002/2009 in which it is held that the appellate Court cannot remand the case, however, in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court it is mentioned that the Single Bench of this Court in case 2 CRR.404/2010 of "Dalchand Vs. State of M.P." (1977 Cr.L.J. 1374) has held that the terminology used in Section 6-C of the E.C. Act is only to give the example and, therefore, the appellate Court was competent to pass an order according to the factual position of the case and it was mentioned by the trial Court that the Bench of equal status cannot discard the law laid by the previous Bench and, therefore, when an order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Dalchand (supra) is already available then same could not be discarded unless a contrary view is given by the Division Bench and over ruled the order passed by the Single Bench. Hence, at subsequent stage, if contrary view is taken by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2010 in Criminal Revision No.1002/2009 then that subsequent order can not be considered as precedent and law laid in case of Dalchand (supra) cannot be defeated. Hence, the interpretation of Section 6-C of the E.C. Act as done by Dalchand's case shall be applicable and the appellate Court was competent to remand the case.
(4) It is pertinent to note that objections were raised by the applicant himself that no opportunity of defence was given by the Collector while passing the order of confiscation and, therefore, order of remand was passed to facilitate the applicant so that he may defend the case and hence there is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2010 passed by the Second Sessions Judge, 3 CRR.404/2010 Guna. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the present revision.
(5) The learned counsel for the applicant informs that he has some grounds on merits, but now such grounds are to be considered by the Collector and thereafter in appeal, it would be inappropriate to discuss them here at premature stage. (6) No illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.
(7) Consequently, interim stay dated 23.07.2010 is hereby vacated.
(8) Copy of the order be sent to the appellate Court as well as the Collector, Guna, for information and compliance.
(9) Record of the appellate Court be also sent to the appellate Court.
(N.K. Gupta)
mani Judge