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 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Appeal No.08 of 2002. The respondent, Ranjitbhai Gangabhai Khunti, was a dealer in free sale kerosene doing business as Maruti Traders. On 29.04.2002, the Mamlatdar, Kotdasangani, inspected the respondent's business premises and found irregularities in the maintenance of stock registers and sale records. Consequently, 66 liters of kerosene were seized, and a show-cause notice dated 23.05.2002 was issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondent filed a written reply on 03.06.2002. The District Supply Officer, Rajkot, after considering the reply and conducting an inquiry, passed an order on 19.06.2002 confiscating 2000 liters out of the total 6630 liters of kerosene seized. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 6C of the Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, who partly allowed the appeal on 15.06.2009, modifying the confiscation order to release 1000 liters of free sale kerosene. The State then filed the present revision. The High Court heard the learned APP for the State; the respondent was served but remained unrepresented. The court examined the provisions of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, which requires the confiscating authority to record its subjective satisfaction regarding the breach of any Control Order. The court noted that the District Supply Officer had recorded such satisfaction, and the appellate court, while acknowledging that the procedure and confiscation were in consonance with law, nonetheless modified the order solely on the ground that no opportunity of cross-examination of panch witnesses was provided. The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own satisfaction for that of the original authority, as Section 6A does not mandate cross-examination. The court further held that the appellate court's order was illegal and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the appellate order dated 15.06.2009 was quashed and set aside, and the order of the District Supply Officer dated 19.06.2002 was restored.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 6A - Subjective Satisfaction - The confiscating authority under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 must record its subjective satisfaction regarding the breach of Control Order. The appellate court under Section 6C cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the original authority. In the present case, the District Supply Officer had recorded satisfaction that the respondent-dealer had violated the Control Order, and the appellate court erred in modifying the confiscation order on the ground that no opportunity of cross-examination of panch witnesses was provided. Held that the appellate court's interference was unwarranted as the procedure under Section 6A does not mandate cross-examination. (Paras 4-5) B) Essential Commodities Act - Appeal - Section 6C - Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction - The appellate court under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has limited jurisdiction and cannot reassess the evidence de novo. The appellate court must defer to the subjective satisfaction of the confiscating authority unless the order is perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and ordered release of 1000 liters of kerosene, which was beyond its jurisdiction. Held that the appellate order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision - Section 397 read with Section 401 (now Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS) - Maintainability - The State's revision against the appellate order under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act is maintainable under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC. The High Court can interfere if the appellate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity. In this case, the appellate court's order was found to be illegal and was quashed. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, could substitute his own satisfaction for that of the District Supply Officer under Section 6A of the Act, and whether the order of confiscation was liable to be set aside for want of opportunity of cross-examination of panch witnesses.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Appeal No.08 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 19.06.2002 passed by the District Supply Officer, Rajkot, is restored.
Law Points
- Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 provides subjective satisfaction of the confiscating authority
- appellate court cannot substitute its own satisfaction
- opportunity of cross-examination not mandatory in confiscation proceedings under Section 6A
- revision under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC (now Sections 438 and 442 BNSS) lies against appellate order under Section 6C of the Act.
