RAJESH MUKHARJEE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved with the order dtd. 21/9/2017 passed by the learned Vth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, District ' Raigarh (CG.) in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2015, whereby the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order dtd. 8/7/2013 passed by the Collector, Raigarh, in Case No.25 of 2013.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 22/5/2013, a raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and he was found in possession of 45 Ltrs. of blue kerosene, 3 stoves which are used in Bhatti, one 14.2 Kg. domestic LPG Gas cylinder was also seized from the possession of the petitioner which he was possessing and using in contravention of clause 3(c) of liquified Petroleum Gas (Supply and Distribution Circulation) Order, 2000 and Kerosene (Prohibition on use and Maximum Price Fixation) Order, 1993 which is punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Seizure has been made on 22/5/2013. LPG Gas Cylinder, blue kerosene as well as 3 Bhatti stoves have already been seized and confiscation proceedings have been started by the Collector, Raigarh which is apparent from show cause notice dtd. 10/6/2013 which has been given to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 21/9/2017 passed by learned Vth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, District ' Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2015 suffers from perversity, hence liable to be set-aside/quashed. He further submits that on 21/6/2013, the Police registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 492 of 2013 against the present petitioner for offence under Sec. 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and final report has been submitted before the learned CJM, Raigarh. The case has been transferred before learned JMFC, Raigarh vide case No. E.C.ACT/0000002/2014 and the case is fixed for charge before argument. He further submits that criminal trial and confiscation proceeding both are penal proceeding and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the confiscation proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submits that the petitioner filed an application before the learned Collector and stated that criminal proceeding is pending for offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and confiscation proceeding may be stayed during pendency of the criminal case, but the learned Collector has wrongly mentioned in the order that civil suit is pending before the learned Court and this Court has not received stay order. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside.