BHIL SAMPATBHAI SHERIABHAI Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner wants this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing and setting aside the communication, Annexure "I" by which the request of the petitioner to withdraw prosecution against him was turned down by the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Baroda and by directing him to reconsider the representation of the petitioner, Annexure "H" de novo.

(2.) The petitioner was holding a licence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was doing business of running a fair price shop at Anandnagar, Kareli Baug, Baroda. It appears that on 20/08/1987, the shop was inspected by the officers of the Civil Supply Department and certain defects and irregularities were found. In connection with those irregularities, a show cause notice was issued on 17/10/1987 wherein it was inter alia, alleged that at the time of inspection, there was considerable shortage in three essential articles, namely, levy sugar - 100 kgs., other sugar 100 kgs., and Palmolin oil - 418 kgs. It was also averred that no satisfactory explanation was put forward regarding the shortage. It was, therefore, alleged that the said stock must have been disposed of by the petitioner without issuing necessary bills thereby committing serious irregularities. It was further alleged that bills of daily sale of Palmolin oil were not entered in Sale Register, nor licence number was mentioned in the bill book. Monthly registers were also not sent every month regularly. By committing those irregularities the petitioner had violated condition No. 4 read with condition No. 7 of the licence and Clauses 17 and 20 of the Gujarat Essential Articles Declaration Order, 1981 as also Sec. 3 of the Act. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him and without prejudice to other actions to be taken under other laws as to why seized goods should not be ordered to be confiscated to the State under Sec. 6-A of the Act. The petitioner was asked to submit his written reply on or before 30/10/1987. Hearing of the case was fixed on 3/11/1987. It was mentioned that if the petitioner would not submit any explanation or would not remain present at the time fixed, proceedings will be conducted ex parte against him and appropriate decision will be taken presuming that the petitioner had nothing to say in his defence.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner submitted his reply on 30/10/1987. The copy of the reply is not produced in the present proceedings. The Collector, Vadodara (respondent No. 3 herein) by his order, dated 19/01/1988 held the allegations levelled against the petitioner proved and accordingly ordered confiscation of certain commodities. That order is also not placed by the petitioner on the record of this petition. It, however, appears that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6984 of 1988 for certain reliefs and in that petition, he had produced a copy of that order.