Gujarat High Court
Saidivasan Mota Kadni Seva Sahakari ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 March, 2014
Author: M.D. Shah
Bench: M.D. Shah
R/SCR.A/564/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 564 of 2012
=============================================
SAIDIVASAN MOTA KADNI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. THRO'
PUWAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HR PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH
Date : 25/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
[1] The present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant to quash and set aside order dated 21.06.2010 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara Camp at Chhota Udepur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010.
[2] It is the case of the applicant that surprise checking was made at the fair price shop of the applicant by the Additional Collector, Chhota Udepur on 14.11.2009 at about 17.15 hrs. At that time, no one present at the shop. Therefore, District Supply Officer i.e. respondent no.2 had sealed the shop of petitioner. On 15.11.2009 the respondent Page 1 of 4 R/SCR.A/564/2012 ORDER no.2 carried out search and seizure. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted under the supervision of respondent no.2. On 25.03.2010 respondent no.2 issued show cause notice to the applicant under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act showing as to why the seized stock total amounting to Rs.61,034/ should not be confiscated. The applicant submitted reply on 12.04.2010. It is further case of the applicant that without properly considering the reply dated 12.04.2010 the respondent no.2 has passed the order dated 21.06.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. Against the said order, the applicant preferred appeal under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Chhota Udepur being Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010. Said appeal is also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Chhota Udepur by order dated 29.12.2011. Hence, this application is preferred by the applicant.
[3] It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant has not committed any violation under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted that impugned order passed by respondent no.2 was without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that respondent no.2 who conducted inquiry against the applicant was not competent to exercise powers under section 6A of the Page 2 of 4 R/SCR.A/564/2012 ORDER Essential Commodities Act. It is also submitted that confiscation of 100% stock is not just and proper and therefore, impugned order is required to be quashed. Learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the case of Patel Ambaram Kuberbhai v/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) GLH 533. Therefore, it is requested to allow the application.
[4] This Court has gone through the notice issued by respondent no.2, reply given by applicant and order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara Camp at Chhota Udepur. It appears that during the course of inspection, stock total amounting to Rs.61,034/ has been confiscated. Notice was issued by respondent no.2 and reply is also given by applicant. Thereafter respondent no.2 passed order 21.06.2010 and confiscated the goods amounting to Rs.61,034/. Said order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Chhota Udepur. It appears that irregularities noticed by respondent no.2 is of technical nature and therefore, order passed by respondent no.2 is illegal and improper. It is to be noted that ordering for confiscating of the stock, respondent no.2 has relied on the panchanama. However, no sufficient satisfactory and convincing reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Judge in confirming the order passed by respondent no.2. Considering the Page 3 of 4 R/SCR.A/564/2012 ORDER decision of this Court in the case of Patel Ambaram Kuberbhai (supra) and considering above facts, the order passed by respondent no.2 is required to be modified to the extent that instead of 100% confiscation of goods amounting to Rs.61,034/, 30% of the goods is required to be confiscated.
[5] In view of above, the application is partly allowed. Order dated 21.06.2010 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of 100% confiscation of goods amounting to Rs.61,034/, 30% of the goods is ordered to be confiscated and order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara Camp at Chhota Udepur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(M.D.SHAH, J.) satish Page 4 of 4