1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
2. By way of present criminal revision application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 04th September, 2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2003 confirming the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2-Collector confiscating the goods amounting to Rs.01,54,492/-.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02nd January, 2003 the Mamlatdar, Visnagar, carried out inspection at the business premises of the applicant's firm and found out six irregularities. Therefore, vide seizure order dated 02nd January, 2003, seized stock of oils amounting to Rs.07,72,460/-. Thereafter, a report dated 02nd January, 2003 was forwarded to the respondent No.2 by the Mamlatdar. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 17th January, 2003 came to be issued asking as to why the seized stock of oil should not be confiscated. Thereafter, after several adjournments, the applicant gave his written reply on 16th June, 2003.
4. Thereafter, after going through the facts of the case and written reply of the present applicant, the respondent No.2 vide his order dated 20th June, 2003 ordered to confiscate 20% of the total seized goods, which came to Rs.01,54,492/-.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 20th June, 2003, the applicant preferred Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2003 before the District and Sessions Court, Mehsana.
6. After hearing bot the sides and evidence produced on record, the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodity), Mehsana (3rd Fast Track Court), vide his judgment and order dated 04th September, 2004 dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 04th September, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodity), Mehsana (3rd Fast Track Court) confirming the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2, the applicant preferred the present revision application.
8. Heard Mr.H.R. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Though served, respondent No.2 is not present before the Court either in person or through counsel.
9. Mr.Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, states that the orders passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodity), Mehsana (3rd Fast Track Court) are erroneous, bad in law, against the evidence produced on record and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. He has also contended that without considering the facts of the case as well as written reply given by the applicant, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2. The orders passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the lower Appellate Court are very harsh in nature. He, therefore, prayed to take lenient view in the matter.
10. As against this, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the orders passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the lower Appellate Court are just and proper and need not requires any interference. After following the proper procedure as well as evidence produced on record and written reply submitted by the applicant, absolutely just and proper order is passed by the respondent No.2, which came to be confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. He has also contended that the applicant is not having any license to carry out the business and prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant.
11. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused papers produced before me. I have gone through the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2 as well as order dated 04th September, 2004 passed by the lower Appellate Court. It appears from the written reply of the applicant that the order of confiscation of 20% seized goods is harsh. The Revision Application filed against the both the impugned orders is of the year 2004 and now after a period of eight years, the present revision application came up on board for final disposal. Looking to the facts of the case and more particularly time gap, I am of the opinion that the order of confiscation of 20% of the seized goods is harsh. Therefore, I am of the opinion that some lenient view is required to be taken in the matter.
12. Hence, in view of above, present revision application is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 04th September, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodity), Mehsana (3rd Fast Track Court) confirming the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby modified to the extent that Instead of confiscation of 20% of the seized goods, 10% goods is ordered to be confiscated. Rest of the judgment and order dated 04th September, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodity), Mehsana (3rd Fast Track Court) confirming the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2 shall remain unaltered. Subject to the aforesaid direction, Notice is discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup