AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maheswaran, J.—The revision Petitioner has filed this revision against the order, of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai confirming the order of the Collector confiscating 65.52 quintals of groundnut and 21 60 quintals of groundnut kernel.
The facts are:-On 9th October, 1976 at about 11.00 A.M., the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, Theni inspected the godown No. 2 at Door. No. 37, Palani Road, Dindigul which belongs to the revision Petitioner-company. The Inspector of police found 182 bags of groundnut weighing 65.52 quintals and 27 bags of groundnut kernel of the weight 21.60 quintals. He found the stock to be in order.
The revision Petitioner has obtained a licence for dealing in groundnut and groundnut products from the District Supply Officer, Thiruchiarapalli. But, the revision Petitioner has not obtained endorsement from the District Supply officer, or the Collector of Madurai for purchasing and stoking groundnut and kernel in Dindigul Taluk. Therefore, the Inspector of Police seized the entire stock of 182 bags of groundnut and 27 bags of kernel and stock registers and bill books. A notice to a show cause as to why the groundnut and kernel should not be confiscated u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was issued to the revision Petitioner. The revision Petitioner replied that it is not necessary to register with the District Supply Officer. The Collector of Madurai found that the revision Petitioner contravened the provisions of Clauses l0(3), 10(4), 3 and 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Regulation of Trade) Order 1974, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and confiscated the stock of 65.52quintals of groundnut and 21.60 quintals of kernel to Government. The learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirmed the order of confiscation. The revision Petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision.
The fact that the revision Petitioner has been dealing in groundnut and has also obtained a licence from the District Supply Officer, Trichirapalli, is not disputed. But the revision Petitioner was instructed by the District Supply Officer, Tiruchirapalli to have it endorsed by the District supply Officer or Collector of Madurai for dealing in groundnut ia Madurai Dis rice. It is admitted by the revision Petitioner that this endorsement has not been obtained The revision Petitioner''s contention is that no endorsement is necessary for dealing in groundout. This contention is not well founded because a dealer who has obtained a licence under Clauses 10(1) and 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Regulation of Trade) Order, may make purchases throughout the District in which it is issued and if the licensee wants to purchase stocks in any other district for the purpose of sale in the district in which the licence is granted, he shall obtain an endorsement on the licence from the licensing authority, District Revenue Officer, Collector, Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Joint Commissioner of Civil Supplies or Commissioner of Civil Supply permitting the licensee to purchase stocks in specified areas and stock in places to be specified and on the the issue of an endorsement permitting the purchase and storage in any other district, the wholesale dealer shall register himself with the licensing authority before be commences his purchase and indicate the godowns in the District if any, where he proposes to store his stocks pending movement to his District. In view of this provision in Clauses 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Groundnut and Groundnut Pro ducts (Regulation of Trade) Order, it is futile for the revision Petitioner to contend that no such endorsement is necessary from the licensing authority.
There is a clear finding that the revision -Petitioner has sold groundnut kernel in Madurai District. It is also clear from the fact that groundnut kernel and groundnut were seized from the godown at Palani Road, Dindigul, and that the revision Petitioner was stocking groundnut and groundnut products in Dindigul Taluk. It is also manifest that the revision Petitioner has hot sent his returns to the District Supply Officer, Madurai for carrying on his business in groundnut and groundnut products at Dindigul. As no endorsement was obtained and as no returns were submitted and as no separate licence has been obtained, the courts below are correct in coming to the. conclusion that there has been a contravention of Clauses 10 (3) and 10 (4) and 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. The Collector has confiscated the entire groundnut and the kernel seized.
It is contended for the revision, Petitioner that even granting that there has been a contravention, the collector ought not to have confiscated the entire stock of groundnut and groundnut products in as much as the contravention is only a technical offence, the learned Counsel invited my attention to a ruling in N. Panduranga Rao v. State of A.P. 1976 M.L.J. (Cri.) 82 the learned Judges of the Andhra High Court observed:
Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act does not make it obligatory upon the authorities finding a person guilty of contravention of the Act, Order or conditions of licence to confiscate the entire stock. It vests a wide discretion in the authorities concerned. The authority may order confiscation of the entire stock or may not order confiscation of any stock at all. The order of confiscation is a judicial order which is subject to an appeal before the Appellate Authority and revision to this Court. The facts and circumstances such as are referred to above, are certainly matters which should be taken into account by a Court in determining the penalty to be imposed, If every trivial contravention is visited with the confiscation of the entire stock, then there will be no difference between unintended contraventions and deliberate acts of hoarding, black-marketing and clandestine transactions.
In Bharani Trading Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 M.L.J. (Cri.) 593, Chennakesav Reddy, J., referring to Section 6-A observed thus:
It is as plain as paint from the provisions of the section that it is not obligatory on the part of the Collector to pass an order of confiscation for any and every violation of an order made u/s 3 of the Act. Permissive words are used by the Legislature conferring capacity or power on the Collector to order confiscation. The discretionary power should no doubt be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.
The learned Judge further observed-
If the nature of the violation is of technical or trivial nature and if there is no object of black-marketing and hoarding behind such violation it would be proper exercise of discretion either not to order or order confiscation of only a part.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention, to Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as it stood prior to the amendment in 1974 and the effect of the amendment after 1074 and observed thus:
The Act envisages, two independent proceeding against a person charged with contravention or violation of an order made u/s 3 in relation to an essential commodity. u/s 6-Athe'' Collector can'' confiscate the seized commodity. u/s 7 such contravention is made punishable. As Section 7 stood at the relevant time, even where a prosecution is launched it was not absolutely obligatory upon the Court to forfeit the property in respect of which the relevant order had been contravened. It was left to the discretion of the court-to direct forfeiture of the whole or part 6f the commodity brought before the Court in respect of which ah offence appeared to have been committed. Since the subsequent amendment in 1974 the discretion of the Court in this behalf is taken away and it is made obligatory upon the court to forfeit the property in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed u/s 7. Therefore, either the Collector can order the confiscation and yet Section 6-D permits infliction of any punishment to which the person convicted there by is liable under the Act irrespective of the fact that the Collector has ordered confiscation u/s 6-A. The dichotomy is that the Collector can proceed to seize the essential commodity - and cancel the licence and forfeit the security deposit. A prosecution can be launched and the Court will have to deal both with the question of punishment and forfeiture of the property in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed. Further, even if the Collector confiscated the property it would be still open to the competent authority to launch prosecution and the court would have to deal with the person who is charged with the offence but in such a situation the question of forfeiture of the property would not arise because the Collector has already confiscated the same.
The ruling of the Andhra High Court to which reference is made earlier is with reference to confiscation u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. In this case, the confiscation was one made u/s 6-A of the Act. In the case before us, no prosecution was launched u/s 7. The contravention is that the revision Petitioner has not obtained the endorsement of the District Supply Officer, Madurai though he has got a licence from the District Supply Officer, Tiruchirappally to deal in groundnut in that District. There cannot be any object of black-marketing and hoarding behind such a contravention. This is not a case of dealing in groundnut and groundnut products without a licence altogether. This mitigating circumstance has been overlooked and ignored by the Collector of Madurai and the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai. I am therefore of the view that in the circumstances of the case, confiscation of half of the stook of groundnut and kernel will serve the ends of justice. The revision is partly allowed, the order of confiscation is modified and half of the groundnut seized and half of the groundnut kernel seized are confiscated to State and the revision Petitioner will be entitled to get back the remaining half either in specie or the value thereof. Except for the modification indicated above, the revision in other respects is dismissed.