SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 24-3-1972 by which a revision petition of the accused who was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was dismissed and a plea raised by the present appellant that the order of confiscation of his truck be cancelled, was overruled. In the instant case, we are not at all concerned with merits of the conviction of the accused. The only point that arises for determination is, whether the order of the Magistrate directing the confiscation of the truck under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act as it stood in 1969 is legally valid. The appellant had filed a petition before the High Court under Section 561-A praying that the order of the Magistrate was extremely harsh and worked serious injustice to the appellant whose property worth one lack has been confiscated for an attempt to export from Haryana to Delhi 75 maunds of cattle fodder. The High Court does not appear to have considered the merits of the application filed by the petitioner but while deciding the case of the accused on merits, it upheld the order of confiscation.

(2.) Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for the appellant submitted three contentions before us. In the first place it was argued that there is nothing to show that there was any attempt to export fodder in the truck outside the border of Haryana. We have considered this argument but in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, it is established beyond doubt that the truck belonging to the appellant was seized first on the Haryana Delhi Border when it wanted to cross the Border and enter the Delhi Border. Thus a clear attempt to export the fodder to Delhi was clearly proved. Secondly, it was argued that the mere exporting of cattle fodder, is not prohibited by law. This argument is also without any substance inasmuch as there was a notified Order passed by the Haryana Government under which the export of cattle fodder was prohibited from Haryana to Delhi. This Order was passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of this order was punishable under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act. This argument is, therefore, overruled.

(3.) The last point put forward before us by the counsel for the appellant was that although the appellant had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order in view of its harshness and arbitrariness yet the High Court did not consider this point at all. It was submitted that, at any rate, this was a more suitable case in which the discretion under the proviso to Section 7 (1) (b) could have been exercised by the Government. We find ourselves in complete agreement with this argument which is well-founded and must prevail. Section 7 (1) (b) reads thus: