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.55/2008. The background of the case involves an inspection on 15.01.2007 at the premises of the respondent, Vikas Dhanraj Choithani, managed by Tarachand Dolatram Choithani, where stock worth Rs.5,55,448/- 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, 1955. A notice under Section 6B(1A) of the Act was issued on 05.01.2008, to which the respondent replied. The Collector, Bhavnagar, by order dated 03.07.2008, ordered confiscation of 100% of the seized stock. The respondent appealed, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal, modifying the confiscation to 15% of the seized stock. The State, aggrieved by this reduction, filed the present revision. The High Court heard Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the State, and Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the respondent. The court examined the submissions and the impugned order. The High Court noted that the appellate court had considered the respondent's explanation and found that the contravention was not so grave as to warrant 100% confiscation. The High Court held that the revisional court's jurisdiction is limited and that the appellate order was neither perverse nor illegal. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the 15% confiscation order.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Proportionality - Section 6B, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The appellate court reduced confiscation from 100% to 15% of seized stock, considering the respondent's explanation and the nature of contravention. The High Court upheld the reduction, finding no perversity or illegality in the appellate order. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope - Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS) - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining legality, propriety, or correctness of the lower court's order. The High Court declined to interfere as the appellate order was not perverse or illegal. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reducing the confiscation from 100% to 15% of the seized stock under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the appellate court's order of 15% confiscation of the seized stock.
Law Points
- Proportionality in confiscation
- Section 6B Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
- Section 438 BNSS
- Section 442 BNSS
Case Details
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 717 of 2013
Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 2, Mr. P P Majmudar for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against appellate order reducing confiscation of seized stock under Essential Commodities Act.
Remedy Sought
State sought quashing and setting aside of appellate order dated 24.04.2013 and restoration of Collector's order of 100% confiscation.
Filing Reason
State aggrieved by reduction of confiscation from 100% to 15% by appellate court.
Previous Decisions
Collector, Bhavnagar ordered 100% confiscation on 03.07.2008; appellate court modified to 15% on 24.04.2013.
Issues
Whether the appellate court's reduction of confiscation from 100% to 15% was perverse or illegal?
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the appellate order?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP for State argued that irregularities were admitted in statement of person in charge, justifying 100% confiscation.
Respondent's counsel supported the appellate order, arguing proportionality and that the contravention was not grave.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining legality, propriety, or correctness of the lower court's order. The appellate court's reduction of confiscation to 15% was based on consideration of the respondent's explanation and the nature of contravention, and was neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of revision application under Section 397 (section 438 of BNSS) read with Section 401 (Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – State has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.04.2013...
Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.01.2007, inspection was made at the premise of the respondent...
Therefore, the respondent was issued notice under section 6(B)-1(A) of the Essential Commodities Act dated 05.01.2008.
After hearing the respondent, Collector was not satisfied... and ordered to confiscate entire stock seized by order dated 03.07.2008.
The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.04.2013 has been pleased to partly allow the said appeal and order of Collector... was modified and ordered to confiscate 15% of the seized stock.
Procedural History
Inspection on 15.01.2007 led to seizure of stock. Notice under Section 6B(1A) of Essential Commodities Act issued on 05.01.2008. Collector ordered 100% confiscation on 03.07.2008. Respondent appealed to Additional Sessions Judge, who partly allowed appeal on 24.04.2013, reducing confiscation to 15%. State filed revision on 25.03.2026, which was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 397, Section 401
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 438, Section 442
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Section 6B, Section 7
