ABDUL KADER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of an order passed by the Collector, palghat, confiscating under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act 100 bags of rice, which, according to the Collector, were being transported in a lorry, was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Palghat. In this revision petition filed by the owner of the 100 bags of rice, the argument of counsel appearing for the owner was that the conditions referred to in S. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act had not been complied with by the Collector in issuing the notice preceding the order of confiscation. Three conditions are referred to in that section and they are that the notice should contain the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate, that the concerned person should be given opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation and that he should also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. THE complaint of the revision petitioner is that the notice issued to him did not disclose the grounds. According to him, the relevant facts as to where exactly the lorry containing the bags of rice was found and on what day and at what time it was found are not mentioned in the notice. It is true that those details are not given in the notice. But they are facts as distinguished from grounds. THEre is a ground mentioned in the notice and that is that the transport was without permit. THE notice also gives an opportunity to the owner to make representation in writing within seven days. THE representation, referred to there is representation against the ground of confiscation and not, about the facts constituting the offence. THE owner of the bags of paddy was also afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter. THErefore the order of confiscation is not open to challenge on the ground that the conditions referred to in S. 6b of the Essential Commodities Act have not been satisfied. But the satisfaction of those conditions does not dispense with the necessity to observe fundamental principles of criminal law. Confiscation of articles belonging to a person is in the nature of a penalty and before that is ordered he is entitled to know the place where and the time when the alleged offence was committed and the facts constituting the offence. THEre is nothing on record to show that the owner of the bags of rice was apprised of those details before the confiscation was ordered. Hence this revision petition is disposed of by setting aside the judgment of the Sessions judge and the order of confiscation passed by the Collector and giving liberty to the concerned authorities, if so advised, to pass fresh orders in the matter after complying with the necessary formalities. Allowed. . .