RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition came up before us since it was referred by a single judge doubting the correctness of Abdu v. State of Kerala (979 KLT 189) wherein it was held that confiscation under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act could only be of essential commodity and not its equivalent in money after it has been sold.

(2.) ON 12-5-1979 the Sub Inspector of Police seized 336 bags of cement stocked by the petitioner since he did not produce the necessary records authorising procurement and stocking. He registered a case and reported the matter to the District Collector who authorised the Asst. Collector to proceed. The Asst. Collector in turn authorised the Tahsildar to dispose of the cement through licensed stockists at controlled rate pending final orders since cement was likely to be damaged if retained for long. The cement was sold and the proceeds remitted under revenue deposit. Pursuant to notice the revision petitioner produced three bills of purchase in the names of three different persons and contended that they entrusted the cement to him for being used for constructions on their behalf as contractor. By proceedings dated 18-7-1979 the asst. Collector rejected the contention and found that the cement was illegally procured and stored for sale in black market in violation of Clause. 3 and 4 of the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1978. The cement was ordered to be confiscated. Tahsildar was directed to transfer and credit the amount to the revenue deposit. Against that order the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1979 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur and it was dismissed on 11-2-1980. The Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the said dismissal.

(3.) THE petitioner was given notice setting forth grounds of the proposed confiscation. He was permitted to file a written objection and was allowed to be examined. THE evidence produced by him was considered on the merits. He was represented by a counsel and a reasonable opportunity for hearing was also given. His contention that the cement was entrusted to him by three persons to execute contract works was considered in detail on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and found incorrect. It was also found that the cement was illegally procured and stored for sale in black market. THEse findings were considered on the merits by the Sessions Judge in appeal and confirmed. After having heard both sides and perused the records we are not in a position to say that there is anything for interference by this court in revision. We are of opinion that the discretion in ordering confiscation was properly and judiciously exercised for valid reasons. THE finding that the cement was illegally procured for selling in black market is evidently a justifiable ground for ordering confiscation.