Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application against the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2011. The Sessions Judge had allowed the appeal of the respondent-accused, Bharatsinh Kesubhai Parmar, and set aside the order of the District Collector, Kheda at Nadiad, dated 17.05.2011. The Collector had ordered the accused to pay Rs.33,000/- (15% of the value of seized rice worth Rs.2,20,000/-) and Rs.24,750/- (3% of the value of the seized tempo valued at Rs.8,25,000/-), totaling Rs.57,750/-, as a penalty in lieu of confiscation under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The facts reveal that on 25.12.2010, a checking was conducted at the business premises of the accused by the District Supplier Officer, Nadiad-Kheda, in the presence of panchas. It was found that 400 bags of Gujarat New Rice were sold without issuing bills or delivery challans, in breach of Section 8 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control & Regulation of Business) Order, 1977. Consequently, the rice and the tempo used for transportation were seized. A show-cause notice was issued, and after hearing the accused, the Collector passed the order imposing the penalty. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which set aside the Collector's order. The State then filed the present revision. The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge had not found any illegality or irregularity in the Collector's order but still set it aside, which was beyond his jurisdiction. The High Court held that the Collector's order was legal and proper, and the appellate court could not interfere without finding perversity. Accordingly, the revision was allowed, the Sessions Judge's order was quashed, and the Collector's order was restored. The accused was directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 6A - Power of Collector - The District Collector, after hearing the accused and considering evidence, ordered payment of 15% of value of goods and 3% of value of vehicle as penalty in lieu of confiscation. The Sessions Judge set aside the order without finding any illegality. Held that the appellate court cannot interfere with the collector's discretion unless the order is perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-7) B) Criminal Revision - Scope of Revision Against Acquittal - Section 397 CrPC - The High Court in revision can examine the legality and propriety of the appellate order. Since the Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside a valid collector's order, the revision was allowed and the collector's order was restored. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the District Collector imposing a monetary penalty in lieu of confiscation under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, without finding any illegality or irregularity in the collector's order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the order of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, dated 07.03.2012, and restored the order of the District Collector, Kheda at Nadiad, dated 17.05.2011. The respondent-accused was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.57,750/- within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Confiscation proceedings under Essential Commodities Act are quasi-criminal
- appellate court cannot set aside collector's order without finding illegality
- Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 empowers collector to order confiscation or impose penalty in lieu thereof
- Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control & Regulation of Business) Order
- 1977
