Rajesh Mukharjee vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Vth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (CG.) in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2015, whereby the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the Collector, Raigarh, in Case No.25 of 2013.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 22.05.2013, a raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and he was found in possession of 45 Ltrs. of blue kerosene, 3 stoves which are used in Bhatti, one 14.2 Kg. domestic LPG Gas cylinder was also seized from the possession of the petitioner which he was possessing and using in contravention of clause 3(c) of liquified Petroleum Gas (Supply & Distribution Circulation) Order, 2000 and Kerosene (Prohibition on use and Maximum Price Fixation) Order, 1993 which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Seizure has been made on 22.05.2013. LPG Gas Cylinder, blue kerosene as well as 3 Bhatti stoves have already been seized and confiscation proceedings have been started by the Collector, Raigarh which is apparent from show cause notice dated 10.06.2013 which has been given to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.09.2017 passed by learned Vth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2015 suffers from perversity, hence liable to be set-aside/quashed. He further submits that on 21.06.2013, the Police registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 492 of 2013 against the present petitioner for offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and final report has been submitted before the learned CJM, Raigarh. The case has been transferred before learned JMFC, Raigarh vide case No. E.C.ACT/0000002/2014 and the case is fixed for charge before argument. He further submits that criminal trial and confiscation proceeding both are penal proceeding and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the confiscation proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submits that the petitioner filed an application before the learned Collector and stated that criminal proceeding is pending for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and confiscation proceeding may be stayed during pendency of the criminal case, but the learned Collector has wrongly mentioned in the order that civil suit is pending before the learned Court and this Court has not received stay order. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State, would support the impugned order and submits that the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh has rightly affirmed the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the Court of Collector, Raigarh.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition.

From perusal of the records, it appears that the learned revisional Court has held that the Collector has not running parallel criminal proceeding against the petitioner, on contrary, as per order of the Collector, separate criminal case for confiscation of his seized essential commodity is registered against the petitioner and directions were made to the Food Inspector to register the FIR against the petitioner. On the basis of complaint of the Food Inspector, FIR No. 492/13 against him under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is registered.

As per record of Court of Collector, the present case before the Collector is pending only for the confiscation of his seized essential commodity under the provision of Section 6A of the Act, before confiscation of petitioner’s seized essential commodities, a notice is served on him by the Collector on 10th June, 2013 in Case No.25/2013 which clearly shows that Court of Collector has registered the case only for confiscation of his seized essential commodities and in the same case Collector made an order for FIR which is registered on 20th June, 2013 as a separate proceeding.

The revisional Court has held that as confiscation proceeding before the trial Court against the petitioner in Case No.25/2013 is only a particular proceeding of confiscation for offences in the present case which is different proceeding from FIR No.492/2013, thus it cannot be said to be hit by principle of double jeopardy.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the Court of Collector as well as by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.