Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 849 (MP)

Rahul Gupta v. State of M. P.

2016-09-21

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. The instant revision has been preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Morena in Criminal Appeal No.159/2015, confirming the order passed the Collector on dated 10.7.2015 by which a truck bearing No.MP07/GA-3590 has been confiscated under provision of section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity the Act of 1955). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owned the aforesaid truck bearing No.MP 07/GA-3590 and is plying it for transportation purpose. On 19.1.2015 between Joura to Morena road; the vehicle was caught by the Fertilizer Inspector and found 100 bags of urea weighted about 50 kg per bag, thus the total weight of urea come to around 5000 kgs. The said vehicle was seized by the Fertilizer Inspector and ultimately by the impugned order the aforesaid vehicle has been confiscated under the provision of section 6A of the Act of 1955. 3. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per provision of section 6A of the Act of 1955; the vehicle could not have been confiscated because no opportunity of hearing has been given to the owner of the vehicle before passing the order of confiscation. On another ground, the vehicle could not have been confiscated because proviso 2 of section 6A of the Act of 1955 provides that an option must be given to the owner of the vehicle to pay in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding to market price on the date of seizure of the essential commodities (Urea in the present case) said to be carried by such vehicle. Here the petitioner is ready to pay fine amount not exceeding to market price of the urea in question. If opportunity of hearing would have been afforded then this option would have been exercised by the owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the matter of N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1994 SC 2666]. The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that in terms of mandate, goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1994 SC 2666]. The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that in terms of mandate, goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. Besides this, petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the matter of Rayees Khan and another v. State of M.P. [ 2007(III) MPWN 20 =2007(1) MPLJ 260], as well as Rajmohan Kapoor v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2009(II) MPWN 36 =2010(1) EFR 197. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner on the basis of reply and submitted that the vehicle was carrying urea without valid permission and, therefore, rightly seized by the authority and rightly confiscated. He further prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The vehicle was seized on 19.1.2015, thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle on 27.2.2015. The reply of the show cause notice has been filed by the driver on 10.7.2015 which is at Annexure P-6, in which he categorically admitted the fact regarding non furnishing of information of the transportation of Urea to his owner. Impliedly, the driver was transporting the urea without the knowledge and permission of the owner. Inquiry conducted in this regard by the Senior Agriculture Fertilizer Officer, Morena also reflects that the urea was being transported for the purpose of farmers at Morena. 7. The mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Coordinate Bench of this Court is clear in this regard. The option must be given to the owner of the vehicle to pay the fine commensurate with the market price of the goods so seized. If the opportunity of hearing would have been given to the owner of the vehicle, then the said controversy would have been crystallized in better manner. 8. The option must be given to the owner of the vehicle to pay the fine commensurate with the market price of the goods so seized. If the opportunity of hearing would have been given to the owner of the vehicle, then the said controversy would have been crystallized in better manner. 8. Resultantly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, while setting aside the order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena as well as the order dated 10.7.2015 the Collector District Morena, matter is remanded back to the Collector District Morena for fresh consideration in the light of provision of section 6A of the Act of 1955 as well as the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the orders of this Court in the matter referred supra. Needless to say, the present petitioner (owner) would be given an opportunity of hearing and to make a representation / submissions in accordance with law. Thereafter, matter shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced by the observations of this Court given in aforesaid paragraphs. Matter be decided expeditiously preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Revision stands disposed of. Sanjay Bahirani for petitioner; R.P. Awasthy, Government Advocate for respondent /State.