Pep Singh and Another vs State of Rajasthan

S.M. Jain, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated Sept. 29, 1984, of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dismissing the petitioner''s appeal against the order dated July 6, 1982, passed by the Collector, Barmer, directing confiscation of Truck No. R.SQ 3217 u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, here in after referred to as ''the Act.''

On December 13, 1981, the Police seized 160 bags of cement from Truck No. R.S.Q. 3217 at the Chouhatan Crossing. Samandarsingh was its driver Pep Singh and Ganpat Raj Luniya were also in the truck. An application was presented before the Collector Barmer, for confiscation of the goods as also the truck. The Collector by the order dated July 6, 1982, directed confiscation of the cement bags and by a separate order dated Feb. 1, 1982, also directed confiscation of the Truck.

In this revision, we are not concerned with the order directing confiscation of the cement bags. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order of confiscation of the truck deserves to be set-aside. He has submitted that it has not been established that the bags of cement were being transported in the truck with the knowledge of the owner of the truck that the same was in breach of the provisions of the Rajasthan Cement Licensing Control Order, 1974.

There is no dispute that the truck was registered in the name of Jabardeen who had sold the truck to Pep Singh. Both Jabardeen and Pepsingh are petitioners in this revision. There is also no dispute that the cement was loaded at the Luniya Gold Transport Company. Shri Ganpat Raj Luniya, a representative of the said Company, was present in the said truck. A permit for 140 bags of cement in the name of Nisar Mohmmed was filed before the learned Collector and it was in the possession of Chetna who is one of the Transport Company. The mere fact that the permit and ''Builty'' were not produced at the time of seizure would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the owners or the driver of the truck knew that the cement bags were being transported in breach of the provisions of the Control Order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not satisfied that the petitioners were aware of this fact. In my view, the circumstances do not satisfy the conditions for ordering confiscation of the truck. The order passed by the Collector, Barmer, in so far as it relates to confiscation of the truck deserves to be set-aside.

Accordingly, the revision is accepted, the order of the Collector, Barmer, dated 6-7-1982 and that of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dated Sept. 29, 1984, in so far as this relates to the confiscation of the truck, are set aside. The truck is already in Supurdgi with the petitioners. The Supurdginama is, therefore, discharged.