Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.45/2008. The appellate court had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent, Tarachand Dolatram Choithani, and modified the order of the District Supply Officer, Bhavnagar, dated 20.05.2008, which had directed confiscation of 50% of the seized stock, to confiscation of 15% of the seized stock. The background of the case is that on 15.01.2007, an inspection was conducted at the respondent's premises at Plot No.370/5, GIDC Chitra, Bhavnagar, where 50% stock worth Rs.26,000/- was seized for contravention of the Essential Commodities Order and PDS Control Order-6(4). An offence was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A notice under Section 6(B)-1(A) of the Act was issued on 26.12.2007. The respondent appeared and submitted a reply, but the District Supply Officer was not satisfied and ordered confiscation of 50% of the seized stock. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Court, which reduced the confiscation to 15%. The State, aggrieved by this reduction, filed the present revision. The legal issues considered were whether the appellate court's order was perverse or illegal and whether the High Court should interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. The State argued that the appellate court erred in reducing the confiscation, while the respondent supported the order. The court analyzed that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised to substitute a view unless the order is perverse or suffers from a jurisdictional error. The court found that the appellate court had considered the facts and circumstances and reduced the confiscation proportionately. The court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the appellate order and dismissed the revision application, confirming the confiscation of 15% of the seized stock.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision cannot substitute its own view unless the order is perverse, illegal, or suffers from jurisdictional error - The appellate court's modification of confiscation from 50% to 15% was based on proportionality and did not warrant interference (Paras 6-7). B) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Proportionality - Section 7 - The appellate court's reduction of confiscation from 50% to 15% of seized stock was held to be proportionate and reasonable, considering the nature of contravention - The revisional court declined to interfere (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's reduction of confiscation from 50% to 15% of seized stock under the Essential Commodities Act warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.45/2008, confirming confiscation of 15% of the seized stock, is upheld.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited
- proportionality of confiscation under Essential Commodities Act
- scope of interference with appellate orders
