Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Vishvanath Naik, challenged the judgment and order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ponda, which upheld the order of the Additional Collector-I cum Additional District Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji in Case No.ECA/1/2012-MAG/44. The background of the case involves a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 made by the SDPO, Ponda, requesting confiscation of essential commodities and a vehicle seized in the course of an alleged illegal transportation. The Inspector of Civil Supplies on 2.11.2012 filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner was found to have illegally 277 rice bags including 1 bag of wheat and a bag of mixed rice and wheat for sale/transportation, being a public control commodity meant for public distribution. The truck bearing Registration No.GA-05-T-1405 was also seized. The Additional Collector passed an order of confiscation of the essential commodities and the vehicle. The petitioner appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of a criminal writ petition. The legal issues considered were whether the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were vitiated due to inordinate delay and whether the order of confiscation was sustainable. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time and that the mandate of summary trial under Section 6-A(2) was not complied with. The respondents contended that the delay was not fatal. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 6-A, which require that confiscation proceedings be conducted summarily and concluded within a reasonable time. The court noted that the proceedings were initiated in 2012 and the order of confiscation was passed in 2015, a delay of over three years, which was not explained. The court held that such delay vitiated the confiscation proceedings. The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Sessions Court, and directed the release of the vehicle and essential commodities to the petitioner, if not already disposed of.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 6-A - Reasonable Time - The confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 must be concluded within a reasonable time. The mandate of summary trial under Section 6-A(2) requires expeditious disposal. A delay of over three years in concluding the proceedings is unreasonable and vitiates the confiscation order. (Paras 4-6) B) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation of Vehicle - Section 6-A - Delay - The vehicle used in the alleged illegal transportation of essential commodities was also ordered to be confiscated. However, due to the inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings, the confiscation order was set aside. The court held that the delay was not explained and the proceedings were not conducted summarily as required. (Paras 4-6) C) Criminal Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - High Court - Article 226 - The High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with orders passed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 if the proceedings are not conducted in accordance with law, including the requirement of summary trial within a reasonable time. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were vitiated due to inordinate delay in concluding the same, and whether the order of confiscation was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ponda and the order passed by the Additional Collector-I cum Additional District Magistrate in Case No.ECA/1/2012-MAG/44 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle and essential commodities to the petitioner, if not already disposed of.
Law Points
- Confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 must be concluded within a reasonable time
- Summary trial mandate under Section 6-A(2) requires expeditious disposal
- Delay of over three years in concluding confiscation proceedings is unreasonable and vitiates the order
