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 judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2002 whereby the appeal of the applicant was dismissed by confirming the order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer in case of SUP/Enfo/Regi No.78 of 1999.
The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is engaged in the business of selling white kerosene. At that time, she was not holding licence since last many years. On 15.6.1999, the Supply Inspector visited the shop of the applicant and 200 liters white kerosene worth Rs.36,000/- were found there. The applicant was not having any stock statement and bill book. Even she had not put any board showing the stock of kerosene. She used to sell the kerosene to the rickshaw driver and thereby she committed the breach of various rules under the provisions of Gujarat Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the Supply Inspector seized the said kerosene. On the basis of report, the District Supply Officer issued a show cause notice to the applicant as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated to the Government and accordingly, the applicant appeared before the District Supply Officer. On considering the evidence on record, the District Supply Officer came to the conclusion that the applicant did not maintain the accounts of stock statement as well as stock and rates of kerosene was not displayed and therefore, the whole stock kerosene was seized by the District Supply Officer under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by his order dated 24.7.1999.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer, Valsad, the applicant herein had preferred Criminal Appeal before the learned District Judge, Valsad, being Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2002 (Old No.50 of 1999).
After hearing bot the sides and after going through the evidence produced on record, the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, vide his judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 dismissed the appeal of the applicant herein and thereby confirmed the order of confiscation dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer, Valsad.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, the applicant herein has preferred the present revision application.
Heard learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami, for the applicant and learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani, for the State.
Mr.
Goswami, learned advocate has fairly stated that this Court has passed so many orders in confiscation matter and has considered the ratio of 50%. He is not arguing this matter on merit and simply he has prayed to reduce 50% of confiscated goods instead of 100%. The District Supply Officer confiscated the whole stock of kerosene worth Rs.36,000/-.
Heard learned APP Mr. Jani for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused papers produced before me. I have gone through the order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer, Valsad as well as order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad. It appears from the papers that the learned Judge has not properly considered the order of confiscation passed by the District Supply Officer. The District Supply Officer has passed the order of confiscation after appreciating the evidence produced on record. I am of the opinion that the order of confiscation passed by the District Supply Officer is proper, but at the same time, it appears that it is harsh. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the order of confiscation of 100% of the seized goods is harsh. Therefore, I am of the opinion that some lenient view is required to be taken in the matter.
Hence, in view of above, present revision application is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer is modified to the extent that instead of confiscation of 100% of the total confiscation goods worth Rs.36,000/-, 50% of total confiscation is ordered to be confiscated. Rest of the order dated 24.7.1999 passed by the District Supply Officer shall remain unaltered. Subject to the aforesaid direction, present revision application is disposed of. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J.) ynvyas Top