1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19/02/2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No. 79/1998 by which the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the applicant by modifying the earlier order passed by the Collector, Junagadh dated 17/10/1998 directing to confiscate 30% of the edible groundnut oil and 30% of the raw rapeseed oil.
2. The facts leading to the present Criminal Revision Application in nutshell are as under;
2.1. The proceedings were initiated against the applicant under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act for breach of provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Order, 1981) and edible groundnut oil as well as raw rapeseed oil worth Rs. 12,43,535/- were seized. It appears that after following the procedure as required and after giving an opportunity to the applicant, the Collector, Junagadh passed an order dated 17/10/1998 in E.C.S. Case No. 66/1997 directing to confiscate 100% of the edible groundnut oil seized and 50% of the raw rapeseed oil seized. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Junagadh dated 17/10/1998 the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 79/1998 before the learned Sessions Court, Junagadh and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment and order has partly allowed the said appeal modifying the order passed by the Collector, Junagadh dated 17/10/1998 directing to confiscate 30% of the edible groundnut oil seized and 30% of the raw rapeseed oil seized. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Shri Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant is not challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Session Court so far as the edible groundnut oil is concerned. However, has submitted that the Collector, Junagadh as well as the learned Sessions Court has materially erred in directing to confiscate 30% of raw rapeseed oil. It is submitted that as such the raw rapeseed oil does not fall within the provisions of Schedule I, Part I D of Order 1981 and, therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Order, 1981 would not be applicable with respect to raw rapeseed oil and, therefore, the Collector, Junagadh has materially erred in passing an order to confiscate the raw rapeseed oil and the learned appellate Court has materially erred in confirming the same. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application.
4. The present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondents-State and the Collector, Junagadh. She has submitted that as such the controversy raised in the present Criminal Revision Application is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khimji Jamnadas Oil Cake Industries Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in 2011 (2) GLH 357. It is submitted that in the case before the Division Bench “raw solvent oil” was seized under the control Order 1981 and the same was challenged on the ground that raw solvent oil is not edible oil and negatived the same. The Division Bench has held that edible oil falls within the ambit of “food stuffs” under Schedule I of the Order 1981 and, therefore, when the “food stuffs” are associated with “edible oil”, it is appropriate to interpret “food stuffs” in the wider sense as including all articles of food which may be consumed by the human beings after processing and, therefore, it is held that “raw solvent oil also would fall under the provisions of control Order 1981 and, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application.
5. Heard Shri Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondents-State and the Collector, Junagadh. As stated hereinabove, the only submission made by Shri Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant is that the raw rapeseed oil does not fall within the definition of edible oil, as raw rapeseed oil is not mentioned in Schedule I and, therefore, the Collector, Junagadh was not justified in passing the order of confiscating raw rapeseed oil. However, the aforesaid controversy is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khimji Jamnadas Oil Cake Industries (Supra). The Division Bench was considering the “raw solvent oil and in the present case the controversy is with respect to raw rapeseed oil. The Division Bench has specifically held in the said decision that edible oil falls within the ambit of Schedule I of control Order 1981 and, therefore, “food stuffs” are associated with “edible oil” and it is appropriate to interpret “food stuffs” in the wider sense as including all articles of food which may be consumed by the human beings after processing. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that so far as the rapeseed is concerned, it falls within Part I of Schedule I of Control Order, 1981. Under the circumstances, with respect to raw rapeseed oil, which is made from rapeseed, the provisions of Control Order, 1981 would be applicable. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the Collector, Junagadh as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh in directing to confiscate the raw rapeseed oil also. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present Criminal Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji