MOGHAL MAMADBEG SHERBAG Vs. A W P DAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges in the present petition the order of confiscation of his goods under sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act as passed by the Collector Kutch at Bhuj and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1975.

(2.) A few facts leading to this petition are as under: The petitioner is a dealer in certain essential commodities and he carries on his business at village Godpar in Bhuj Taluka. It is a small village having hardly 1003 souls. The petitioner is dealing on a small scale in items of daily requirements of the community. On July 19 1975 the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Supply Inspector who was acting under the provisions of the Act and the essential articles dealers regulation order issued thereunder. It is alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of 2360 K.G. of groundnuts and it was also found that certain items were not credited in the regular stock register as required by the relevant order. On the basis of the said inspection a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on July 29 1975 by the (Collector Bhuj alleging that as 18 items of goods listed in the show cause notice were not mentioned in the regular stock register the petitioner had committed breach of the Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order 1971 Hence the petitioner was called upon to show cause why such goods listed in the show cause notice should not be confiscated under the provisions of sec. 6A of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner by his reply dated 4-8-75 contended that the groundnuts were of inferior quality and he had sent them to Bhuj for sale but the goods were rejected and therefore they had remained with him. As regards the other items he had admitted that he had not maintained any separate stock register as required by the Regulations order but he had started maintaining the registers after the visit of the Inspector and that his mistake may be condoned. Thereafter the Collector Bhuj by his order dated September 6 1975 after hearing the petitioner held that the petitioner had committed breach of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Regulations) Order 1971 so far as the other articles were concerned. The Collector held that so far as the groundnuts were concerned the petitioner had 2360 K. Gms. in stock on 15-1-75 and the said groundnut stock continued upto 24-6-75 unutilised and consequently it clearly showed that condition No. 7 (2) of the dealers licence was committed breach of by the petitioner as he had illegally withheld the slid stock from the public and had created artificial scarcity in the market. So far as the other items were concerned relying on the admission of the petitioner that he had not maintained separate registers he held that it amounted to clear breach of the relevant clause of the order and hence all these articles were liable to be confiscated under sec. 6A of the Act. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Collector by filing Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1975 as per the provisions of sec. 6C(1) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge at Bhuj by his order dated 31-12-1975 dismissal the said appeal. It is the said order of the learned Sessions Judge who has confirmed the order of the Collector which his been challenged in this petition.