C DEVAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference by Paul, J., these criminal revisions come before us for being disposed of by a Division Bench. The common question of law raised for consideration in these cases, is whether means rea must be established, before the Collector of a District or Presidency Town can pass an order of confiscation of (a) an essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity, in exercise of his powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Suryamurthy, J. has answered the question in the affirmative in two cases, viz., (Arunachala Mudaliar in re 1979 Mad LW Cri 98 and R. Ramaswami v. R. D. O. Vridhachalam, 1979 Mad LW Cri 121) Paul, J., was of opinion that Section 6-A is a self contained section dealing only with confiscation of an essential commodity, its package or the conveyance used to transport it and such being the case, it is not necessary to prove means rea for an order of confiscation being passed under Sections 6-A and 6-B. As the learned Judge considered the matter to be of great public importance, he deemed it proper to have the matter referred to a Bench. The Honourable Chief Justice has accordingly referred the matter to a Bench and that is how, these cases come up before us for disposal.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts in the criminal revisions are as follows : In Cri.R.C. No. 797 of 1977 and 122 of 1979 the Sessions Judge of Chengalpattu has confirmed on appeal the order of the District Collector of Chengalput in confiscating under Section 6-B of the Act, lorries belonging to the respective revision petitioners. In Crl.R.C. 15 of 1978 the Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli has confirmed on appeal the order of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, confiscating certain stocks of foodgrains and edible oils belonging to the revision petitioner, under-section 6-B of the Act. In Cr.R.C. 157 and 158 of 1978, the Sessions Judge of North Arcot Dist. has confirmed on appeal the order passed by the District Collector of North Arcot confiscating the petitioners' lorries and also bags of paddy under-section 6-B of the Act. The main ground of attack in all the revisions is that before ordering the confiscation of the stocks of paddy etc., and or the vehicles, as the case may be, it should be proved by the State that the petitioners, who are the owners of the confiscated goods or vehicles, had mess rea. Before we refer to the reported cases cited at the Bar, we may refer to the objects and the relevant provisions of the Act and the amendments and that have been introduced by various amending Acts.