Challenging the order passed under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, confiscating the rice, this criminal revision has been filed.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of revision are as follows:
On 28.04.2009 at about 6.30 p.m, while the second respondent Police, on inspection found a lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-11-G-342, carrying 160 bags of rice each containing 75 kilograms was standing near one V.R.N. Rice Mill, belong to the petitioner. On inspection, it was found that the above rice was PDS rice. Hence, the vehicle was taken to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies godown at Srivilliputhur. Thereafter, samples were taken and sent for analysis and the report says that the seized rice are PDS rice. In the above circumstances, a notice under Section 6(B) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted, in which, the petitioner and the owner of the lorry was examined and after considering the materials, the authority ordered confiscation of the entire rice. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of confiscation of rice. Now, challenging the same, the present criminal revision has been filed.
3.I have heard Mr.P.Senthur Pandian, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and perused the records carefully.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that while seizing the vehicle and rice, the authorities has not followed the procedures and the sample rice was taken from the lorry in the absence of the petitioner and the sample was also not handed over to the petitioner to enable them to get it analysed by the private agencies and on the basis of the report submitted by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Laboratory, the authorities came to the conclusion that the rice is PDS rice.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would contend that the respondents followed the entire procedures thoroughly and after taking three samples from seized rice, since the petitioner has not come forward to receive the samples, the authorities had sent the samples to laboratory for analysis and the analysis report clearly says that the entire rice is PDS rice and proper enquiry was conducted by the Original Authority; a notice was also issued to the petitioner and others and they also raised objections. After considering all the objections, order has been passed. Hence, there is no illegality in the order.
6.I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the materials available on record.
7.From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the lorry was seized on inspection. Thereafter, a notice has been issued to the petitioner for enquiry. After seizure of the lorry, samples of rice were taken from the lorry and they were also sent for chemical analysis and the chemical analysis report says that it is PDS rice, thereafter an enquiry was also conducted, in which, the petitioner and the owner of the lorry had appeared and raised objections. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the Modern Rice Mill and the rice seized by the police, is not PDS rice and it has been produced in his mill and the same was sent to Palakkad through a proper bill and the driver of the lorry has also given a statement stating that when the lorry was transporting the rice, the Taluk Supply Officer inspected the lorry and after taking a sample of rice from the lorry, he has sent the lorry to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies godown. Further considering the entire materials, the Original Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not prove that the rice is meant for commercial purpose. On the other hand, it has been established by the 2nd respondent that it is only a PDS rice, and it has been illegally transported by the petitioner.
8.The appellate authority, also after considering the entire materials and the grounds raised by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal.
9. In view of the above concurrent findings, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the authorities and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Virudhunagar.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..