STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HITESHKUMAR NANDLAL TANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 28th December, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and reduced the value of the goods confiscated to 10% of the original amount as directed by the Collector, Junagadh vide order dated 14th November, 2005 passed in Case No.Food/Enfo/ESA/40/05.

(2.) THE facts stated briefly are that, pursuant to a search carried out on the premises of the respondent, Civil Supply Officers, Junagadh had seized certain goods in connection with certain irregularities noticed by the search team. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 6[b] of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him in respect of breach of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The respondent submitted his reply mainly contending that edible oil is no longer an essential commodity under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and under the Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (the Essential Articles Order), and therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the respondent. The Collector, Junagadh vide order dated 3rd January 2006 has held that the irregularities alleged against the respondent were proved and directed confiscation of the entire stock that had been seized amounting to Rs.66,380/ -. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh under the provisions of Section 6(C) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 28th December, 2007 found that, of the three irregularities alleged against the respondent, the first irregularity, namely, failure to place the board mentioning the stock is exfacie a minor irregularity; that the second irregularity, namely, non -maintaining of stock register on day to day basis can also be termed as a technical irregularity; and the third irregularity, namely, finding of 23 excess groundnut oil tins cannot be termed to be an irregularity at all; that technically the stock in the register should match the actual stock and that inference of black marketing is possible when there is deficiency in stock qua the stock mentioned in the register. That excess stock is prima facie a technical irregularity. The learned Judge, after arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, held that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty is reduced from 100% to 10%. He, accordingly, quashed the order dated 11th November, 2005 passed by the Collector, Junagadh. Being aggrieved, the State of Gujarat has filed this petition, challenging the said order.