STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL PROTEINS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by way of this application, has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 02. 05. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Appeal No. 1 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order dated 20. 12. 2000 passed by the District Collector confiscating the wheat worth Rs. 11,29,600/ -.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the respondent was doing the business of manufacturing the wheat products like Manda, Soji etc. and was having wholesale licence being licence No. 59/97. On 10. 05. 2000, an inspection was carried out by the applicant on the factory premises of the respondent and a quantity of 689 Kg. was found in excess. Thereafter, on 12. 05. 2000, again an inspection was carried out by the applicant and panch rojkam was prepared in the presence of panchas. As per the rojkam dated 12. 05. 2000 drawn by the District Supply Officer, Rajkot, the quantity of wheat to the tune of 66,730 Kgs. was found in excess. Therefore, the District Supply Officer, seized the entire stock of wheat found in the possession of the respondent, under the provisions of Clause 26 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties. The grievance of the applicant is that the Court below has committed error in interpreting the panch rojkam made on 10. 05. 2000 by the Dy. Collector, Gondal and the stock found on 12. 05. 2000 by the District Supply Officer at the time of inspection. He has therefore, submitted that there is contradiction in the reply to the show-cause notice and the statement made by the respondent. On perusal of record, it transpires that there was a mistake in calculation by the District Supply Officer. However, on comparison of panch rojkam as on 10. 05. 2000 and 12. 05. 2000, there was no excess quantity of wheat then what was shown in the register. Hence, the actual stock in possession of the respondent was tallied with the stock register and on account of calculation mistake by the District Supply Officer, an excess stock was shown in the stock register.