Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 798 (MP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of M. P.

2000-08-09

N.K.JAIN

body2000
The petitioner, who runs a stationary shop at Kothari Market, Ratlam calls in question the order dated 25.3.97 (Annexure P-5), passed under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, by the respondent No.2, the Collector, Ratlam as also the Order dated 8.2.2000 (Annexure P-7), passed in appeal, by the State Government, respondent No. 1. The impugned order (P-5) was passed by the Collector for the alleged violation by the petitioner of the provisions of the M.P. Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition & Price Control) Order, 1977, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the E.C. Act, by the State Government. It is alleged that on 6.7.95, respondent No.3, the Food Inspector, Ratlam inspected the petitioner's shop and found that no price list or the stock position was exhibited by the petitioner in the shop, as required by Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the said order. The Food Inspector seized exercise note-books 24,800 found in stock in petitioner's shop. Proceedings under section 6-A of the Act were initiated by the Collector, who, after giving show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order (P-5) confiscating the said exercise books. The order of the Collector is affirmed in appeal by the State Government vide order dated 8.2.2000 (P-7). It is not disputed that the petitioner did not on the relevant day exhibit price list or stock position of the note-books when his shop was inspected by the Food Inspector. He was, thus, clearly guilty of violation of Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the Price Control Order. The petitioner has, however, assailed the impugned order of confiscation on the grounds – One : that he was not given opportunity to lead evidence in his defence: and Two : that violation was only of technical nature and no mens-rea could be attributed to the petitioner. It was, thus, contended on behalf of the petitioner that in any case the order of confiscation of the entire stock worth Rs. 2.75 lacs was unduly harsh and not commensurate to the guilt of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on a D.B. decision of the Bombay High Court in Madhav 1977 CrLJ 1800 and a decision of this Court in Ganpat, 1983 MPWN 176 . 2.75 lacs was unduly harsh and not commensurate to the guilt of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on a D.B. decision of the Bombay High Court in Madhav 1977 CrLJ 1800 and a decision of this Court in Ganpat, 1983 MPWN 176 . As regards the opportunity to lead evidence, it is noted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner had ever prayed before the Collector for allowing him to lead evidence. On the contrary, the proceedings (vide copy Annexure P-4) revealed that the petitioner had made clear statement before the Collector that he has nothing to say in the matter. Over and above, what has already been said in his written reply to the Show Cause Notice, petitioner's contention In this regard is, therefore, wholly unacceptable. As regards the mens-rea, no doubt it is an essential ingredient like that of an offence, for taking action of confiscation u/s 6-A of the E.C. Act. However, the presence or absence of mens-rea is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the instant case, it is on record that the petitioner not only omitted to exhibit price list and stock position in his shop, he also did not produce his other account books to show that he has not earned any undue profit by sale of those note-books. Under the circumstances the Collector as also the Appellate Authority in concluding that the omission on the part of the petitioner in not exhibiting the price list and the stock position, was intentional and he indulged in undue profiteering. The petitioner's contention on this count is also, therefore, not acceptable. This is essentially a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, in which scope of interference is limited even otherwise. The proceedings of the orders passed by the two quasi-judicial Authorities, do not suffer with any jurisdictional error or error of Law. No interference is, therefore, called for by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition, thus, fails and is dismissed.