KRISHNA BHIMA WALAVALKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 20-7-78 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge. Belgaum in Cr.A.No.109 of 1977 confirming the order dated 10-10-1977 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, in No.SB/COM/SR-35/77 confiscating the seized 40 barrels of groundnut oil and the truck bearing registration No. MHL 2675, which was transporting the same.

(2.) The necessary facts may be stated as follows: By the report dated 8-6-1977 the Sub-Inspector of police, Hukeri, intimated the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, that at about 11-30 hours on 6-6-1977 he had seized the truck bearing registration No. MHL-2675 driven by the petitioner-1 and in which petitioner-2 was a cleaner as the same was carrying 7200 K.Gs. of groundnutoil. The value of the oil was Rs. 7,000. The oil was being transported frorn Shri Satyanayana Oil Mills, Bellary Road, Kampli to M/s.Anant Oil Mills Nippani. He complained that the transport was being made without giving declaration to the Tahsildar, Kampli, regarding transport etc., and hence, he registered a case in Crime No.45 of 1977 for breach of sub-clause (2) (a) of Clause-3 of the Edible Oils, Edible Oil Seeds and Oil Cakes (Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Order).

(3.) On receipt of the report the Deputy Commissioner issued notices and cause was shown by the petitioner as to how they had not committed breach of the aforementioned provision. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept the cause shown and directed confiscation of the oil as well as the truck. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Sessions Court, Belgaum, and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal. In reply to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, M/s.Anant Oil Mills, Nippani, represented by petitioner-4, has stated that the transport was made on 5-6-1977, which was a Sunday, and hence, Form-II prescribed by the said provisions, could not be furnished to the Tahsildar at Hospet, and therefore, it was only a technical mistake. The two courts below have held that whether the mistake was technic, or not, breath of the said provision haa been committed and as such, the goods as well as the truck ought to be confiscated.