AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Seshasayana Reddy
This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 27-10-2011 passed in E.C.A.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam made in E.C.P.No.784 of 2010.
Facts in brief are that the respondent on receipt of credible information from Tahsildar, Ibrahim patnam, seized a lorry along with rice load. The rice load has no valid documents. Chinthala Venkata Rao, who is proceeding along with rice load was taken into custody by Ibrahim patnam Police. On interrogation, he stated that he is purchasing rice from various places. A Panchanama came to be conducted and stock of 63.25 quintals of Samba Masuri Rice and 5.50 quintals of broken rice came to be seized in the presence of mediators. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the stock failed to produce licence.
Proceedings have been initiated before the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Tahsildar, Mylavaram. The Joint Collector by order dated 17-1-2011 ordered for confiscation of entire seized stock. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam assailing the order of the Joint Collector.
The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to modify the order passed by the Joint Collector reducing the confiscation from 100% to 50% of the value of the seized stock, by judgment dated 27-10-2011. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the revision.
The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of seizure, the notification issued u/s 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has not been extended and therefore, the seizure and the initiation of proceedings u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with regard to seized stocks are invalid. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis on Section 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which reads as hereunder.
2A. Essential commodities declaration, etc:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, "essential commodity" means a commodity specified in the Schedule.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest and for reasons to be specified in the notification published in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to--
(a) add a commodity to the said Schedule;
(b) remove any commodity from the said Schedule,
in consultation with the State Governments.
(3) Any notification issued under sub-section (2) may also direct that an entry shall be made against such commodity in the said Schedule declaring that such commodity shall be deemed to be an essential commodity for such period not exceeding six months to be specified in the notification.
Provided that the Central Government may, in the public interest and for reasons to be specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend such period beyond the said six moths.
(4) The Central Government may exercise its powers under sub-section (2) in respect of the commodity to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtue of Entry 33 in List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before both Houses of Parliament.
By referring the definition "essential commodity" u/s 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that unless notification is issued after expiry of six months, the rice cannot be described as essential commodity.
The petitioner has not urged this point either before the primary authority or before the appellate authority. For the first time he advanced the plea that the notification issued u/s 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has not been extended after expiry of six months.
A plea reading of Section 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 indicates that if the period is specified, the said period is to be extended after expiry of six months. In the schedule no period has been specified. Therefore, the question of extension does not arise. The rice indisputably comes within the meaning of foodstuffs, which finds place at serial No.3 of the Schedule. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. No other point has been urged before me.
Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.