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 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. After following procedure and recording the respondent's statement, a seizure order was passed for 66 liters of kerosene. Subsequently, the District Supply Officer issued a show-cause notice on 23.05.2002 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondent filed a written reply on 03.06.2002. The District Supply Officer passed an order of confiscation of 2000 liters out of 6630 liters of kerosene seized on 19.06.2002. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, who partly allowed the appeal and modified the order, directing release of 1000 liters of free sale kerosene. The State then filed the present revision. The learned APP argued that the appellate court failed to appreciate that Section 6A of the Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authority, and the appellate court cannot substitute its own satisfaction. The appellate court had held that since no opportunity of cross-examination of panch witnesses was provided, the order was vitiated. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the appellate order and restoring the confiscation order of the District Supply Officer, holding that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own satisfaction and that cross-examination is not mandatory in summary confiscation proceedings.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 6A - Subjective Satisfaction - The confiscating authority under Section 6A must record subjective satisfaction based on material on record; the appellate court under Section 6C cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the original authority. (Paras 5-6) B) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Cross-Examination - Section 6A - The requirement of cross-examination of panch witnesses is not mandatory in summary confiscation proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, unlike in a criminal trial. (Para 6) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision - Section 397 read with Section 401 - The revisional court can interfere if the appellate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can substitute its own satisfaction for that of the confiscating authority under Section 6A, and whether failure to provide cross-examination of panch witnesses vitiates the confiscation order.
Final Decision
Revision application allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Appeal No.08 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. The order of confiscation passed by District Supply Officer, Rajkot dated 18.06.2002 is restored.
Law Points
- Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 provides subjective satisfaction of the confiscating authority
- appellate court under Section 6C cannot substitute its own satisfaction
- cross-examination of panch witnesses not mandatory in confiscation proceedings
- distinction between criminal trial and summary confiscation proceedings
