SANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a proprietor of M/s. Sandeep Chemicals and involved in the business of sell and purchase of chemical thinner. On 24.06.2006, the Station House Officer, Basantpur, while on patrol duty at 9:40 p.m., found the Metador bearing registration No. CG -07 -ZB -0955, owned by present applicant standing in front of Lai Bagh Petrol Pump containing 15 drums including 5 drums filled with Blue Kerosene oil. No satisfactory explanation was offered by the present applicant. The Station House Officer suspecting the said Kerosene oil to be of Public Distribution System being illegally transported, seized the said essential commodities along with Metador and case No. 19 -C/150, 2006 -2007 was registered by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, for violations of para -3 of Kerosene Vyapari Anugyapan Adesh, 1979, and para 3(1) of Kerosene Upyog per Nirbandhan Aur Adhiktam Kimat Niytan Adesh, 1993, punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955). The applicant was afforded opportunity to show cause against proposed action to be taken. The Collector, Rajnandgaon, after hearing the parties, by order dated 27.8.2007, having found the applicant guilty of violation of paras 3 and 3(1) of the aforesaid orders, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, forfeited 1000 liters of Kerosene oil and confiscated the vehicle involved in, in favour of State Government.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the said order directing forfeiture and confiscation, the applicant herein preferred criminal appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 (incorrectly titled as Criminal Revision No. 72/2007) before the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions by order impugned held that against the order of Collector passed under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, appeal under Section 6C of the Act, 1955 would be maintainable before the State Government, and therefore, the court of sessions has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against that order. Questioning this order, instant revision has been preferred before this court by the applicant.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the order impugned and submits that this revision deserves to be dismissed.