SHRI RAJ INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 14,19(i)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 11-10-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2010 whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and order dated 14-5-2010 passed by the learned Collector, Amreli, qua seizing 40% of seized goods i.e. 100 bags of groundnuts (3500 kg.) worth of Rs.96,250/-.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was running oil industry, used to purchase groundnuts from various persons through commission agents of Marketing Yard at Rajula. Due to some irregularities noticed in the same on a roadside checking near Adsang Crossroad on Savarkundla-Rajula road, vehicle loaded with 250 packets of groundnuts purchased by the petitioner for his industries was seized by the authority on 1-12-2009. THErefore, a notice was issued by the Collector, Amreli, on 19-1-2010 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner. Said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2010 before the learned Special Judge, Amreli. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11-10-2010. Both these orders are under challenge by the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED APP has left to the discretion of the Court with respect to the percentage of the goods to be confiscated, This Court has gone through the record and proceedings as well as the impugned orders. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the nature of allegations and the breach alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, it prima facie appears that the breaches which are committed by the petitioner are a technical nature. Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that if instead of 40% of the goods seized is confiscated, if 35% of the goods is ordered to be confiscated, it will be in the fitness of things, just and proper and proportionate to the breaches committed by the petitioner. LEARNED advocates for the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order.