AGGARWAL OIL AND GENERAL MILLS Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner firm is holding alicence as a producer of edible oils granted under Clause 4 of. Delhi Edible Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as. the Licensing and Control Order), and, as such, it could sell or store edible oils produced by it in accordance with the provisions of the Licensing and Control Order. On November 26, 1980, staff of the Special Cell, Grime Branch, Delhi Police, alongwith the Inspectors of Food and Supplies Department conducted a raid at the business/factory premises of the petitioner situated at C-228, Main Road, Brahmpuri, Delhi, and they found the following quantities of edible oils of different varieties stored therein :-

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Judicial Authority appointed under Section 60 of the Act) who happened to be an Additional Sessions Judge. The Judicial Authority, on the basis of the documents already filed by the petitioner before the Collector as also the voucher issued by M/s. Tikkam Chand Brothers in respect of imported Soyabeen Oil, came to the conclusion that the aforesaid 59 tins of Soyabeen Refined Oil contained imported edible oil, and, as such, the provisions of the Licensing and Control Order were not applicable and stocking of the imported Soyabeen Oil did not violate any provision of Licensing and Control Order. Thus, he directed the release of the said quantity of Soyabeen Refined Oil on usual terms. On the basis of this order, the Collector required the petitioner vide his order dated August 19,1981 to furnish an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer of the case to the. effect that the dealer shall pay the price of the same to the State if ultimately the Court trying the Criminal Proceedings directs forfeiture of the said property to the State.

(3.) The chief grievence in this revision petition is that this part of the order of Judicial Authority is bad in law. His line of argument is that having come to the conclusion that the contents of the 59 tins bearing label of 'Gopi Brand' were of imported Soyabeen Refined Oil there was no question of any further direction for furnishing any indemnity bond/surety bond. In other words, the release should have been absolutely unconditional i.e. without any strings. However, the learned counsel for the State has urged that the very purpose of requiring the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond is to indemnify the State in case the petitioner is eventually convicted of an offence under Section 7 of the Act by the Criminal Court and the goods seized for contravening the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are directed to be forfeited.