STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. FICOM ORGANICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE is served upon the respondent who has not preferred to appear.

(2.) THIS revision application is preferred by the applicant -State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 29.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bharuch passed below Exh.41 in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2006.

(3.) THE case pertains to the licence for solvent and furnace oil regulated under Essential Commodities Act ( for short the Act ). The respondent has been running a factory namely Ficom Organics Limited to manufacture pesticides at GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar. The process requires use of furnace oil and solvent and therefore the respondent had been applying for renewal of licence regularly and from time to time. Initially licence was issued to him on 31.1.2001. Since it was set to expire on 31.12.2004, he applied for its renewal for the year 2005 on 20.12.2004 i.e. 10 or 11 days before the date of expiry. The respondent completed all the formalities and also paid the required fees of Rs.250/ - on 14.12.2004. However, it was quite surprising to note that the petitioner issued a letter dated 27.12.2004 asking the respondent to first get the licence for explosive renewed, which was set to expire on 31.12.2004. The respondent made an application on 6.3.2004 in response to which the Mamlatdar, Ankleshwar addressed a letter to the respondent drawing his attention to Government instructions dated 27.6.2003, exempting the requirement of licence if the monthly consumption was below 50 KL with the storage of 20 KL. By this letter necessary information which was called for was supplied by the respondent with a request to renew the licence for the year 2005. In response thereto, by letter dated 5.8.2005, the petitioner refused to renew the licence on the pretext that it had expired on 31.12.2004. The respondent responded by pointing out the previous stand as also the fact as to exemption requirement of licence as above. The respondent also pointed out that the explosive licence was asked for by Mamlatdar, and same was supplied accordingly. Copy of the licence was annexed with the letter dated 6.3.2005, and in reply thereto, the petitioner reiterated that validity of both the licence had expired. The respondent repeated his request for renewal by his letter dated 4.6.1995 and 21.12.1995. Once again he made an application for explosive licence on 6.3.2005 with a request of renewal of other licence. None of these applications were positively responded by the petitioner. They remained undecided, and instead of deciding the application for renewal, one way or the other, the petitioner (Mamlatdar) visited the premises of the respondent and on the plea that the respondent possessed a licence only upto 31.12.2004; found various deficiencies; verified the stock, initiated the proceedings under the Act, issued a letter of seizure and ultimately confiscation and then required the respondent to file an undertaking as also bank guarantee probably for release of the goods. The respondent even complied with the demand of 100% bank guarantee. The case under the Essential Commodities Act was ultimately fixed on 4.4.2006, and the respondent appeared before the authorities concerned, once again pointing out the state of affairs referred to hereinabove and requesting for release of the goods. The licence was ultimately renewed upto 31.12.2006. However, the Collector under Section 6 of the Act, ordered the confiscation of seized stock to the tune of Rs.13,213/ -.