1. As common question of law and facts arise in the both the applications and as such they can be said to be cross revisions challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court, both the Criminal Revision Applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts leading to the present Criminal Revision Applications in a nutshell are as under;
2.1. The proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities act came to be initiated against the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 241/2012 and after conclusion of the said proceedings, the learned Collector, Bhavnagar passed an order to confiscate 100% of the goods seized. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Collector, Bhavnagar dated 05/06/2008 directing to confiscate 100% of the goods seized the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 241/2012 preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, being Criminal Appeal No. 51/2008 and the learned appellate Court-learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar by impugned judgment and order dated 15/03/2012 has modified the order passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar directing to confiscate 20% of the goods seized instead of 100% of the goods ordered to be confiscated. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar dated 15/03/2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2008 the original applicant as well as the State has preferred the Criminal Revision Applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the reasoning given by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar while passing the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has not considered the case on merits and/or discussed anything on merits and straightaway has come to the conclusion that confiscation of 100% goods is too excessive and thereby has reduced the percentage of the goods to be confiscated.
3. It appears to the Court that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned appellate Court to decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits to which the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have no objection and they do not invite any further reasoned order.
4. In view of the above stand taken by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and without further expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties and/or further entering into the merits of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar dated 15/03/2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned appellate Court to decide and dispose of the said appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits after giving an opportunity to all the concerned.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appeal shall be heard by another learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar and not the concerned Judge, who has passed the impugned order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the concerned Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the applications.
6. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the concerned Court immediately.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji