IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl. Revision Case Nos.334 & 335 of 2017 & Crl. M.P. Nos.3180 & 3181 of 2017 Seshasai .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.334/2017 Suresh .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.335/2017 Versus Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Vellore .. Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs.
Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set-aside the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in Crl.A.Nos.46 & 47 of 2012.
For Petitioner in both cases : Mr.S.Natana Rajan http://www.judis.nic.in For Respondent in both cases : Mr.R.Ravichandran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****
C O M M O N O R D E R
Both the revisions have been filed challanging the order of confiscation of gas cylinders said to have been seized from the petitioner.
2. The respondent, on inspection, on 31.08.2001, near Kelambakkam village, Old Mahabaliburam Road, found 42 LPG Gas cylinders in an unauthorized place, which is in violation of 3(1)(c) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 (herein after called as “Order”) and, therefore, registered a case for offence under Section 7(i)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.163 of 2002 and thereafter, proceedings under Section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act (herein after called as “Act”) has been initiated. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate, kancheepuram, passed an order dated 09.08.2012 confiscating all the 42 cylinders and handed over the same to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and also directed to continue further with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
3. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed separate appeals in Crl.A.Nos.46 and 47 of 2012 before the appellate authority/ the Principal http://www.judis.nic.in Sessions court, Kancheepuram and the appellate authority by common order dated 16.09.2016, while confirming the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer modified the order to the extent of directing the respondent police to proceed with the criminal proceedings, if the law of limitation permits. Now, challenging the above common order, the present revisions have been filed.
4. Mr. S.Natana Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that notice under Section 6-B of the Act have been issued to the petitioners on 02.12.2002, directing them to appear for enquiry on 21.01.2003 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioners also filed their objections. Thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned at the request of the petitioners to 14.02.2003. On 14.02.2003, enquiry was conducted and thereafter, again on 08.03.2007 an enquiry notice was issued only to the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.335 of 2017, but no notice has been issued to the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2017, but no enquiry was conducted, subsequently on 09.08.2012, District Revenue Officer and District Additional Magistrate, Kanchipuram, passed an order confiscating all the cylinder. Therefore, the impugned order which was passed without any inquiry and http://www.judis.nic.in application of mind is required to be revised.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that since the gas cylinders which have been seized, were found stored in an unauthorized place and when the petitioners could not able to establish their ownership of the same, the District Revenue Officer passed orders confiscating the cylinders, which was confirmed by the appelate Court with certain modifications and the same need not require any interference.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully.
7. From a perusal of the records, it could be seen that after seizure of the gas cylinders, a notice under Section 6-B of the Act was issued to the petitioners on 02.12.2002 directing them to appear for enquiry on 21.01.2003. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed their objections and sought adjournment and on their request, the enquiry was adjourned to 14.02.2003. Thereafter, for about 9 years nothing had happened and all of a sudden by a common order dated 09.08.2012, the District Revenue Officer and District Additional Magistrate, Kanchipuram, confiscated the entire gas cylinders and http://www.judis.nic.in passed an order in a printed form filling up some particulars of the case.
8. From the perusal of the records, it could be seen that the earlier enquiry notice was issued in the year 2002. Thereafter, after 5 years another notice was issued on 08.03.2007 and then, the impugned order was passed on 09.08.2012. Further perusal of the records show that no proper enquiry was conducted by the respondent and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners, the order of cofiscation has been passed in a printed form and without assigning any reason whatsoever, in total non application of mind. In the above circumstances, since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and also without assigning any reason whatshoever, the impugned order passed by the District Revenue Officer is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the revenue authorities for the purpose of conducting a fresh enquiry after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Revenue Officer and District Additional magistrate, Kanchipuram and the District Revenue Officer is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, after giving sufficient opportuninties of hearing to the petitioners and pass a detailed order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.06.2017 mrp Index: yes/no Internet: yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order To
1) The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram.
2) The District Revenue Officer & Additional District magistrate, Kanchipuram.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
Mrp Crl.RC.Nos.334 & 335 of 2017 & Crl. M.P. Nos.3180 & 3181 of 2017 29.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in