JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6th of July, 2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 229/2000 by the Session Judge, Raigarh. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.4.2000 passed in Food Case No.44/99 by Collector, Raigarh, whereby the said authority passed an order of confiscation of 60 quintals of rice under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner is a licensed dealer holding a valid license under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. On 23.3.99, he was issued a Levy Paid Certificate. (LPC) by competent authority which was valid for 60 days from 20.3.99. According to the LPC, he was having levy free stock of 93.80 quintals of rice. On 19.5.99, the petitioner sold 60 quintals of rice to one Vijay Kumar Gupta (FGL No. 7/94), Main Road, Gumla, District Gumla, Bihar. He obtained a permit from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa on 19.5.99. The above rice was loaded in Mini-Truck (609) No. B.R. 14G2971. When consignment was being transported to its destination, on 20.5.99 at about 1.30 a.m., it was seized by Food Inspector, Raigarh on the pretext that the LPC issued to the petitioner was valid for 60 days from 20.3.99 and the said period expired on 18.5.99, therefore, sale of the rice on 19.5.99 was in contravention of Madhya Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order 1970'. Show-cause was issued by the Collector to the petitioner who contended that this LPC was valid for 60 days from the date of its issuance on 23.3.99. Even if it is held that it was valid for 60 days from 20.3.99 which expired on 18.3.99, later on, on an application made by the petitioner before its expiry, its validity was extended till 20.6.99, therefore, the sale on 18.5.99 would not be in contravention of the above Order 1970, as the same was made under bonafide belief that the period of the LPC is going to be extended on their application.

(3.) Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that even if it is taken that the period of LPC expired on 18.5.99, the same was extended upto 20.6.99 and an endorsement to this effect was made in the LPC, therefore, the LPC would be taken as valid continuously from 20.3.99 till 20.6.99 and the sale and transportation in this period cannot be held to be in contravention of the Order 1970. Alternatively, he also argued that there does not appear to be mens rea on the part of the petitioner as it had already applied for extension of period of LPC, and under the impression that normally extension is not refused, which later on was also granted, the act of the petitioner was bonafide. He cited the judgment of Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 AIR(SC) 43.