Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 501 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Manoj Kumar Mehtele

2016-06-23

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. By means of filing the present revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/State has assailed the judgment dated 11.9.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Criminal Appeal No.96/2009 whereby learned Sessions Judge has allowed appeal of the respondent and directed release of confiscated sugar. This fact is not in dispute that looking to the rising prices and hording of sugar, the State of M.P. in terms of provisions of clause (b) of section 5 read with section 3(2) (Gha) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 issued an order on 13th July, 2009 in respect of licensing and control of sugar trades whereby prohibiting trading of more than 20 quintals sugar without license. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent who is a trader of sugar purchased 159.50 quintals sugar from M/s. Vijay Trading Co., Raipur (Chhatttisgarh) on 17.8.2009 which was received on 19.8.2009 by him at Kotma, Anuppur. Before receiving the aforesaid quantity of sugar, respondent applied for grant of license in respect of 17.5 quintal sugar. The respondent’s godown was searched by the Asstt.Supply Officer on 21.8.2009 wherein stock of 159.50 quintals of sugar was found. Notice in this respect was issued to the respondent on 22.8.2009 as to why the said stock of sugar be not confiscated. 3. The respondent replied to the aforesaid notice contending that on coming to know about issuance of aforesaid order, he had applied for license on 18.8.2009 and at that time 17.50 quintals sugar was in his stock. 4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent, the Collector, Anuppur vide Order dated 25.8.2009 directed confiscation of the sugar stock of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.96/2009 which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 11.9.2009 and the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Anuppur was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this revision. 5. Learned PL appearing for the petitioner/State has contended that the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He submits that since the excess quantity of sugar was found in unauthorized possession of the respondent, learned Court below ought not to have held that there was no criminal mens rea of the respondent because respondent had applied for licence. He submits that since the excess quantity of sugar was found in unauthorized possession of the respondent, learned Court below ought not to have held that there was no criminal mens rea of the respondent because respondent had applied for licence. Since respondent had unauthorizedly stored huge quantity of sugar, it is in violation of the provisions of Licensing and Control Order dated 17.8.2009 read with section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, therefore, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and order passed by the Collector be restored. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge is proper and calls for no interference in this petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record, I find that there is no force in this revision, it deserves to be dismissed. 8. The litigation day is 13th July, 2009 when notification under Sugar Control Order, 2009 was issued, which reads as under :- “F.No.7-43-2009-XXIX – Whereas the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies issued a Notification GSR 164 {E} dated 12th March, 2009 wherein it authorizes the State Government to fix the stock holding and turnover limits of sugar in the States : Now therefore in exercise of the power conferred by clause {d} of sub-section {2} of section 3 read with clause {b} of section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 {No.10 of 1955}, the State Government, hereby makes the following orders, for licensing and control of sugar trades in the State, namely:-” 9. From a perusal of Sugar Control Order 2009, the respondent squarely covers under the definition of “Trader” which reads as under :- “{a} 'Trader' means a person carrying on the business of purchase, selling or distributing sugar not more than 20 quintals at a time or intends to trade accordingly but does not include any industrial unit which is involved in the manufacturing or production of sugar and which is registered or licensed under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1951.” 10. The amendment vide Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2009 clearly provides that in paragraph-2 in Clause {a} “Definition of Trader” for the words “not more than”, the words “not less than” shall be substituted. The amendment would take effect from 29.8.2009 and not before that. 11. The amendment vide Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2009 clearly provides that in paragraph-2 in Clause {a} “Definition of Trader” for the words “not more than”, the words “not less than” shall be substituted. The amendment would take effect from 29.8.2009 and not before that. 11. Even otherwise, it would be trite to say that when a penal law is amended, the amendment would become effective from the date it is notified and ordinarily it would not have retrospective effect unless it is so notified in the amending notification. 12. Undisputedly, in the present matter, the search was made on 21.8.2009 wherein stock of 159.50 quintal of sugar was found, hence seizure was effected on the same date. 13. If that be so, the amendment made on 29.8.2009 shall not apply to the search and seizure effected prior to 29.8.2009. In the present case, if the amendment was to apply with effect from 29.8.2009 and the provisions are penal in nature then the amended provisions would not apply to the position as it was on 21.8.2009, it goes to show that the learned Collector did not properly appreciate the distinction and the legal position that the amended provisions were not to apply to the search and seizure made and affected on 21.8.2009. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the order passed by the learned appellate Court is legally correct while confiscation order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the Collector cannot be approved. Hence, this revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for petitioner/State; Ms. Malti Dadaria for respondent.