BASANT LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by a dealer Basant Lal against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow upholding the order of the A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) confiscating 167 quintals 24 kilograms 600 grams of rice in proceedings under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The relevant facts are that rice weighing about 167 quintals was received by the applicant on 24.4.75 and was stored in two such godowns which were not mentioned in the licence issued to him. The police seized that rice on the same day, i.e., 24.4.75 alleging that the applicant had stored it in violation of the terms of the licence and thus contravened the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. A case was also registered against him under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules but no prosecution has yet been launched against the applicant for the same. However, the police requested the Collector to take action against the applicant under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant as to why for violation of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 the stock seized may not be confiscated. The applicant filed a reply. He contended that there was no violation order. According to him the stock received by him was more than the quantity which could be stored in the existing godowns mentioned in his licence. So he stored them in other godowns. He alleged that according to the terms of the licence, information about these two godowns could be given within forty eight hours of the occupation but before he could do so, the stock was seized. Actually he also informed the Regional Food. Controller the next day about these godowns. The learned A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) did not deal with this specific contention of the applicant. He rejected it merely by saying that there was no importance of the information given after the seizure. He further hold that the rice in question did not seem to have been purchased from Banthara market as was alleged by the applicant. Accordingly he ordered confiscation of the seized stock of the rice in question. As appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge. It however, came to be heard by the learned Additional Sessions Tudge. Besides challenging his order on merits one of the points urged before him was that the learned A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) had no jurisdiction to pass the order of confiscation and it could be done only by the Collector. There was said to be no order authorising Jiim to take action under Essential Commodities Act. The State, however, filed a copy of the order of the Collector authorising the A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) to take action under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. That contention was accordingly rejected. About the other contention whether there has been a contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the learned Judge held firstly that the proof of the contravention was not on the same pattern as was done in criminal cases and that only the satisfaction of the Collector was desired which was something less than that kind of proof. He also agreed with the view of the A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) that there was contravention of the order by the applicant by storing the rice in these godowns which were not enumerated in the licence and that information sent on the next date had no value. He further held that there was contravention of the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970 inasmuch as the rice in question did not appear to have been purchased from the Banthara market which was within the district of Lucknow but from somewhere else. So he confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the learned A. D. M. (Civil Supplies). In revision it has been contended that both the courts below have committed manifest illegality inasmuch as they did not at all consider the provisions of the licence which permitted a licensee to inform the licensing authorities about the new godowns within forty-eight hours of their occupation. It was also contended that there was no proof, rather no allegation that he had contravened the provisions of U. P. Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970. So far as the second contention is concerned, it is clear that the notice which was issued to the applicant (as given at page no. 12 of the Civil Supplies file) only required the applicant to show cause as to why the rice in question be not confiscated for his storing the same in unauthorised godowns. There was no allegation that it also proposed to confiscate the rice for purchasing the same from outside Lucknow district and thus violating the provisions of the U. P. Rice Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970. So when there was no notice under section 6-A on that ground confiscation for that reason could not be ordered. As regards the first contention, that too has a force. It is true that the rice in question was found stored in godowns other than those enumerated in the licence of the applicant but that could not by itself be in contravention of the terms of the licence. A note appended to clause (2) of the licence (as per proforma given under the Act) provides that if the licensee stores the foodgrains in godown other than those specified, they would give intimation thereof within for to eight hours of their occupation and shall also produce the licence for making requisite changes by the licensing authorities. In other words merely keeping the food-grains in places other than those enumerated in the licence up to forty-eight hours of their occupation would not amount to contravention of the terms of the licence, if within this period the licensee informs the authorities concerned about his having stored the same in such godown and also produces his licence before them for making requisite changes therein. In this case it Is clear that the rice in question was seized by the police on the very day it was stored by the applicant in those new godowns. There was thus no opportunity left to him to intimate the licensing authority and it would have also been useless. However, in this case the applicant actually intimated the authorities the next day. Both the learned lower court as well as the learned A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) rejected this contention by merely observing that such lame excuses could be given after seizure. But how could there be a lame excuse when the licence authorised him to give such intimation even up to two days of the occupation ? So it cannot be said that there was really any contravention of the provision of the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 and as such confiscation of the same by the authorities concerned was illegal. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) as well as by the learned appellate court are both set aside. The stock will be returned to the applicant at once. If, however, the stock has been sold during this period, its money value shall be paid to the applicant..