Prakash Chandra Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vimla Singh Kapoor, J

This revision petition has been directed against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 05.10.2005 whereby the findings recorded by the Collector by

way of order dated 25.04.2001 ordering for confiscation of the paddy, rice and broken rice has been confirmed.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.01.2001 the Food Inspector along with Nayab Tehsildar, Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sakti, Sub Engineer

of the Electricity Department and one other person raided the rice mill of the accused/applicant and found 12,215.25 quintals of paddy, 12,839.85 of

rice and 6,148.50 quintals of broken rice. Physical verification however shows that quantity of the paddy found there was 12,298 quintals; that of rice

12,875 quintals and that of broken rice 6,148.50 quintals. Food Inspector thus assessed that 81.25 quintals of paddy and 35.15 quintals of rice kept in

the godown was in excess to what was entered in the stock register which amounts to contravention of Condition 3 of Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit

Vastu (Anugyapan tatha Jamakhori Par Nirbandhan) Order, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ""Order 1991""). Seizure of excess paddy and rice was

made and Panchnama to that effect was drawn in presence of the witnesses. Report drawn by the Food Inspector was then forwarded to the

concerned Collector/Licensing Authority for proceeding against the accused under Section 3/7 and 6 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act. Taking

cognizance of the report forwarded by the Food Inspector, the Collector/licensing authority issued a show cause notice to the accused which was

replied to on 14.2.2001. Another show cause notice dated 13.3.2001 was replied to on 11.4.2001.

Since the applicant expressed his desire not to examine any witness arrayed by the prosecution nor to adduce any evidence in his defence, the

Collector/Licensing Authority by its order dated 25.4.2001 ordered for confiscation of 75 per cent of the seized paddy and rice and also forfeited the

surety amount deposited by him for obtaining the licence. On appeal, the order of the Collector/Licensing Authority came to be affirmed by way of

order under challenge in this revision dated 05.10.2005. Hence, this revision.

Counsel for the applicants submit that without there being any cogent material to show any ingredient of black marketing, hoarding etc. both the

courts below have arrived at an erroneous conclusion of holding the accused/applicant guilty under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. He

also attacks the procedural irregularities in making search, physical verification and then affecting seizure of the food grains stocked in the godown of

the accused/applicant. He also submits that no proper weighment of the food stuff has been made and the panchnama to this effect is based on

conjecture and surmises. He submits that had the proper weighment been done no difference in the quantity found in the godown and the one entered

in the stock register would have surfaced.

State counsel however supports the order impugned and submits that all the procedural formalities required to be under taken, have been taken care

of and after giving full opportunity to the applicant of proving his case and considering his replies to the show cause notices, the Collector/Licensing

Authority has passed the order for confiscation of 75 % of the food items so seized, which on appeal has been rightly approbated by the lower

Appellate Court.

Perusal of the record shows that while replying to the show cause notice the applicant had categorically expressed his desire of neither examining

any witness produced by the prosecution nor to adduce any evidence in his defence. All the order sheets from 14.02.2001 up-till 25.05.2001 bear the

signature of the accused/applicant and only after he showed his disinclination to adduce any evidence, the Collector had passed the order confiscating

the food grains and also forfeiting the surety amount deposited for obtaining the license. Thus, the view taken by the Collector/Licensing Authority

duly approved by the lower Appellate Court that no violation of principles of natural justice has occurred to the accused/applicant, appears to be fully

justified. Likewise, the stand taken by the applicant that he was perforce made to sign the papers while drawing the proceedings against him including

the weighment panchnama, physical verification of the stock, affecting seizure etc. does not appeal to the judicial conscience of this court because had

he really been aggrieved by all that, he should have taken the matter to the higher competent authorities and should not have waited till submission of

reply to the show cause notice.

Thus, no irregularity or illegality has struck the judicial mind of this court and being so the order impugned is hereby maintained and the revision

being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.