JAYSURYA GASES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who deals in the business of refilling of Liquified Petroleum Gas ( for short "LPG" ) was held to have violated Clause 9 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1993 ( for short "the Order" ) inasmuch as they were alleged to have purchased the LPG without bills and supporting material. The petitioners were called upon to show-cause as to why the goods either in part or full should not be confiscated for the aforesaid breach, under the authority vested in the Collector by Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act ( for short "the Act" ). The reply furnished by the petitioners did not satisfy the Collector and ultimately an order was passed confiscating the entire quantity which was intercepted by the Collector while it was being carried to weighing machine as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, moved the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Appeal No.19 of 2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur by impugned judgment and order dated 7.3.2006 partly allowed the appeal modifying the order passed by the Collector and directed to confiscate 50% of the goods in question instead of 100%, as also forfeiture of 25% value of offending vehicle instead of confiscation of the whole offending vehicle. This has aggrieved the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Application.

(2.) MAINLY two contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners being; (1) Clause 9 of the Order is not attracted in the facts of the present case, because in his submission it applies to the case where the dealers are appointed under Public Distribution System and the petitioners were not appointed as such, and (2) that the petitioners had maintained their accounts, but so far as present incident is concerned, it was only on account of difficulty faced by the first petitioner in getting the LPG transported, that he sought help from the second petitioner and the LPG actually was transported with the bill drawn in the name of the second petitioner, and at the request of first petitioner, the LPG was agreed to be shared and after removal of the part of the goods required by the second petitioner for his use, the other part was required to be weighed before the details could be entered in the accounts of the first petitioner. However, during the transit for weighing the goods they were intercepted, and impugned show-cause-notice was issued to both the petitioners.

(3.) IN above view of the matter, the ends of justice would be served if the case is remanded to the appellate court for rendering a finding as to whether Clause 9 of the Control Order is applicable to the facts of the present case as also whether technical flaw if any would result into confiscation of the goods/offending vehicle as a whole or in part.