AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr.Justice R.M.Chhaya
By way of this application u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thepetitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2003, confirming the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Competent Authority u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 confiscating 50% stock amounting to Rs. 65,971/-.
The facts relating to this application are as under:
That the Petitioner is authorized dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and is doing his business in the name and style of ''Laxmi Auto Services'' at Bavla, District Ahmedabad. The Petitioner possesses valid retail licence for dealing with MS & HSD bearing No. 88 of 1981.
It bornes out from the record that on 7.4.2002, an inspecting team led by Deputy Director of Food & Civil Supplies Department visited the petrol/diesel pump of the Petitioner. A statement of the person present at petrol pump was recorded and the panchnama was drawn exhibiting the stock of petrol and diesel. The inspecting team found that there was shortage of stock of petrol to the tune of 1125 liters and excess stock of diesel to the tune of 5200 liters. Resultantly the stock was seized which was amounting to Rs. 1,31,962/-. On the basis of the said report as well as seizure order, the Competent Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 7.12.2002 directing the Petitioner to show cause as regards the discrepancies noticed in the report as well as seizure order and for alleged breach of condition No. 4 of the licence as well as Section 2K of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licencing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. The Petitioner filed his reply to the Show Cause Notice and after considering the same, the Competent Authority of the State Government vide order dated 7.3.2003 came to the conclusion that the Petitioner has committed breach of the provisions of the order and conditions of the licence as per the Show Cause Notice and was pleased to confiscate 50% of the stock seized amounting to Rs. 65,971/- being value of 2600 liters of diesel and 562.5 liters of petrol.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2003. The Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, found no error in the order passed by the Competent Authority and by judgment and order dated 15.10.2003 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the present application is preferred.
Heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.J. Desai, learned APP. for the State.
Both the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have made available the relevant documents from the record of the case and have relied upon the documents which are on the record of this application.
Mr. Prajapati vehemently submitted that the very initiation of proceedings against the present Petitioner is without any authority. Mr. Prajapati further submitted that hence further proceedings are vitiated because of lack of authority. Mr. Prajapati also submitted that there is no allegation of black marketing against the Petitioner and solely relying upon the statement made by a person found at the petrol pump, the actions are taken and the impugned orders are passed. Mr. Prajapati also submitted that the Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has committed an error in confirming the order passed by the First Authority. Mr. Prajapati therefore submitted that the revision deserves to be accepted and both the orders deserved to be quashed.
As against this, learned APP. Mr. Desai has assailed both the orders. Mr. Desai submitted that in fact, the voluntary statement was given by the authorized person of the Petitioner and had never raised such contention either before the first authority or before the Appellate Court and therefore, it is not open for the Petitioner to raise the said contention. Mr. Desai has relied upon the statement of Shri Mukeshbhai Atmaram Patel, who was an employee of the Petitioner. Mr. Desai further submitted that the Petitioner was dealing with essential commodities which are valuable national assets such as petrol and diesel. Mr. Desai therefore submitted that it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to scrupulously adhere to the conditions of the licence. Mr. Desai also submitted that only because there is no allegation of black marketing against the applicant the Petitioner cannot be permitted to commit breach of the conditions of the licence. Mr. Desai submitted that no explanation has been rendered by the Petitioner in regard to the discrepancies found at the time of inspection. Mr. Desai submitted that after considering the evidence on record the first authority has rightly passed the order of confiscation. Mr. Desai submitted that the Appellate Authority has also correctly reappreciated the evidence on record and the Appellate Court has committed no error in confirming the order passed by the First Authority. Mr. Desai therefore submitted that the application is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be rejected.
Considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusing record of the case, I find that the Petitioner has failed to render any reasonable explanation to the discrepancies in the stock of petrol and diesel and the main excuse putforward by the Petitioner that the tank was constructed before ten years and because of the earthquake, the level of tank has been affected and that hence the tank is not properly balanced is rightly not accepted by the First Authority as well as the Appellate Court. The contention that the seizure order is without jurisdiction is also negatived by the evidence on record inasmuch as that the powers have been delegated by the District Collector in favour of Deputy Director of the Civil Supplies Department by order dated 12.5.1998. 11. Cumulatively therefore I find that the Petitioner has not been able to make out any case which warrants interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I do not find any error in the impugned orders.
The revision is therefore liable to be rejected. Hence, the application is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.