Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 344 (CHH)

Sandeep Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-09-11

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER 1. The applicant is a proprietor of M/s. Sandeep Chemicals and involved in the business of sell and purchase of chemical thinner. On 24.06.2006, the Station House Officer, Basantpur, while on patrol duty at 9:40 p.m., found the Metador bearing registration No. CG-07-ZB-0955, owned by present applicant standing in front of Lai Bagh Petrol Pump containing 15 drums including 5 drums filled with Blue Kerosene oil. No satisfactory explanation was offered by the present applicant. The Station House Officer suspecting the said Kerosene oil to be of Public Distribution System being illegally transported, seized the said essential commodities along with Metador and case No. 19-C/150, 2006-2007 was registered by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, for violations of para-3 of Kerosene Vyapari Anugyapan Adesh, 1979, and para 3(1) of Kerosene Upyog per Nirbandhan Aur Adhiktam Kimat Niytan Adesh, 1993, punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955). The applicant was afforded opportunity to show cause against proposed action to be taken. The Collector, Rajnandgaon, after hearing the parties, by order dated 27.8.2007, having found the applicant guilty of violation of paras 3 and 3(1) of the aforesaid orders, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, forfeited 1000 liters of Kerosene oil and confiscated the vehicle involved in, in favour of State Government. 2. Feeling aggrieved against the said order directing forfeiture and confiscation, the applicant herein preferred criminal appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 (incorrectly titled as Criminal Revision No. 72/2007) before the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions by order impugned held that against the order of Collector passed under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 would be maintainable before the State Government, and therefore, the court of sessions has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against that order. Questioning this order, instant revision has been preferred before this court by the applicant. 3. Questioning this order, instant revision has been preferred before this court by the applicant. 3. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that learned Sessions Judge has committed manifest illegality in holding that appeal under Sec. 6C would be maintainable before the State Government ignoring subsequent legislative change made in Section 6C of the Act, 1955, and as such, order impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the court of Sessions to hear and dispose of appeal in accordance with law on its merit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the order impugned and submits that this revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made therein and perused the order impugned carefully. 6. In order to judge the correctness of the order impugned, it would be proper to notice Section 6C of the Act, 1955, as well as the legislative change in the aforesaid provision relating to appellate authority. 6.1. Section 6C(1) of the Act, 1955 originally enacted, reads as under-- "6C. Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Sec. 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to [any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority] shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against." 6.2. The Madhya Pradesh State Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, has appointed Sessions Judge as a Judicial Authority for exercising power conferred under Section 6C of the Act, 1955. 6.3. Thereafter, the Essential commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 inserting certain special provisions by way of amendment in the Act, 1955 in order to expedite process of prosecution under the principal Act. In the principal Act, the following amendment in Section 6C of the Act was made- "5. 6.3. Thereafter, the Essential commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 inserting certain special provisions by way of amendment in the Act, 1955 in order to expedite process of prosecution under the principal Act. In the principal Act, the following amendment in Section 6C of the Act was made- "5. Amendment of section 6C.-In section 6C of the principal Act:- (a) In sub-section (1), for the words "any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority", the words "the State Government concerned and the State Government" shall be substituted; (b) In sub-section (2), for the words "such judicial authority", the words "the State Government" shall be substituted." By above-stated amendment Act, in Section 6C of that Act, in place of judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and judicial authority, word 'State Government concerned' and State Government was substituted. 6.4. The Act, 1981 came into force w.e.f. 01.09.1982 by GSR dated 31.08.1982 for a period of five years. 6.5. The duration of the Act, 1981 was extended for another five years and the word "five years" was substituted in Section 1(3) of the Act for the "ten years" by Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Continuance Act (25 of 1981) w.e.f. 28.08.1987. 6.6. Thereafter, by Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1993 (34 of 1993) for ten years in Section1(3) of the Act, "fifteen years" was substituted w.e.f. 27.08.1992. 6.7. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) ordinance, 1997 was promulgated on 03.10.1997, published in extraordinary Gazette of India on 03.10.1997. It provides that during the period of operation of ordinance, the original Act, 1955, shall have effect subject to amendment specified in the Sections 3 to 11. 6.8. The Act, 1981, ceased to operate after the period for which it was enacted. Under this ordinance, the position which existed prior to the enforcement of the Act, 1981, was restored and consequently, after this date, the appellate powers conferred upon the judicial authority under the original Act, 1955, stood revived, which is clear from the ordinance issued which came into force w.e.f. 03.10.1997. The amendments specified in Sections 3 to 11 do not show that any amendment has been made in Section 6C of the original Act, 1955. Consequently, the appellate authority which stood in the original Act, 1955, is revived. The amendments specified in Sections 3 to 11 do not show that any amendment has been made in Section 6C of the original Act, 1955. Consequently, the appellate authority which stood in the original Act, 1955, is revived. In the original Act, 1955, the appellate powers under Section 6C of the Act, 1955, are conferred upon "any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned", which was taken away by the Act, 1981. Thus, upon the expiry of the Act, 1981, that is the expiry of fifteen years from 01.09.1982 and upon promulgation of ordinance w.e.f. 03.10.1997, the appellate authority under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 would be the judicial authority appointed by the State Government originally enacted and provided as the amended provision ceased to apply on coming into force of ordinance on 03.10.1997. 7. After having noticed the legislative change, falling back to the facts of the present case, order of forfeiture and confiscation was passed by the Collector on 27.08.2007 giving rise to the cause of action to prefer appeal under Section6C of the Act, 1955, and therefore, the appellate authority as on that day would be the judicial authority appointed by the State Government, i.e. Sessions Judge. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge is absolutely unjustified in holding that the order is appealable before the State Government and not before the court of sessions. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court of sessions, Rajnandgaon, to register the case as appeal case and to hear and determine the appeal in accordance with law on its own merit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.