District Collector and Others vs Dhanjibhai Chhaganbhai Khapandi

Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Shah

The present revision application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-State of Gujarat to quash and set aside order dated 7-9-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.3, Junagadh in Appeal No.72 of 2006 and to confirm the order passed by learned Collector, Junagadh dated 11.12.2006 passed in FOOD/ENFO/ECA/Case65/2006.

Facts in short are that on an inspection carried out by Assistant Collector, Veraval, on 8-6-2006 at the petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum situated at Bhidiya Plot, Veraval, Dist. Junagadh for the alleged breach of control orders made under the Essential Commodities Act, as certain irregularities were found in breach of Clauses 16 and 23 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (License, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 as well as breach of Condition No.4 of the License issued in favour of the respondent, 6765 liters of petrol amounting to Rs.3,53,944=80 was seized and taken in safe custody. Hence, a show casue notice dated 30-10-2006 was issued under Sec. 6B of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the respondent. The respondent gave reply on 8-11-2006. However, upon hearing the respondent and his advocate, learned Collector, Junagadh confiscated 10% of the stock amounting to Rs.35,395/- vide order dated 11-12-2006. Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2006 preferred in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.3, Junagadh under Sec. 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was allowed vide order dated 7-9-2009 and order passed by the Collector was set aside. Hence, this revision.

Heard learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the applicant-State. However, learned advocate, Mr.Jayesh Koteja for the respondent No.1 did not remain present.

It is submitted by learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the applicant-State that learned Appellate Judge failed to appreciate that though there was a total sale of 930 liters of diesel, bills for sale of only 797 liters were issued and against the sale of 617 liters of petrol, bills for only 545 liters were issued. Taking this Court through the statement of Manager of the Pump and Panchnama, it is submitted by Mr.Pujari that there was a deficit in stock of 168 liters of petrol. It is also submitted that no filter papers for testing quality of petrol was kept by the petrol pump owner at the time of inspection. Moreover, the respondent had not furnished bank guarantee of the equivalent amount of seized stock and hence, according to him, the stock had been used by the respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the irregularities noticed during the inspection, no leniency ought to have been shown to the respondent by the learned Appellate Judge and hence, it is requested that the impugned order of the Appellate Judge be quashed and set aside and the order of the Collector be restored.

Learned advocate, for the respondent, however, did not remain present when called out.

This court has gone through the notice as well as the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Appellate Judge. It appears that due to certain irregularities noticed during the course of inspection, 10% of the stock worth Rs.35,395/- was ordered to be confiscated vide order dated 11-12-2006 passed by the Collector. However, said order has been quashed and set aside by the Appellate Judge by holding that irregularities noticed by the Collector appear to be of a technical nature and, therefore, order passed by the Collector confiscating only 10% of the stock is illegal and improper. In the opinion of this Court, said finding is totally erroneous and not in accordance with the law in view of the fact that the Collector, after applying his mind and considering the irregularities of technical nature, took a lenient view and only 10% of stock was ordered to be confiscated and, therefore, order passed by the Collector is legal and proper. It is to be noted that in ordering for confiscating of the stock, the Collector has relied on the statement of owner of Petrol Pump as well as the panchnama. Thus, it is clear that no sufficient satisfactory and believable reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Judge in quashing the order passed by the Collector and, therefore, on a total erroneous ground, the Appellate Court has quashed the order passed by the Collector. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Court requires to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Collector requires to be confirmed.

In view of the above, this revision is allowed. Order dated 7-9-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.3, Junagadh in Appeal No.72 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and order passed by learned Collector, Junagadh dated 11.12.2006 passed in FOOD/ENFO/ECA/Case65/2006 is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back forthwith.