BABU RAM JAGANNATH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a partner ship firm. It carries on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains under licences granted to it under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 964. In the evening of 12th August, 19G7, the Senior Marketing Inspector, Hapur, raid ed the petitioner's business premises and seized a truck-load of Matar Dal (100 bags), on the belief that this commodity was being transferred to M/s. Prayag Das Ved Prakash of Ghaziabad. On 25th August, 1967, the Collector, Meerut, issu ed a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods be not confiscated under S. 6-A, Essential Com modities Act, for contravention of condi tions 9 and 9-A of the aforesaid Lijensing Order. The petitioner filed a representa tion and contended that the goods \vere not being transferred as a result of any sale to any other wholesaler. So, there was no contravention of the provisions of conditions 9 or 9-A. The District Magis trate did not accept the petitioner's con tention and, by an order dated 16th Oc tober, 1967, directed that 98 quintals 40 klgs. and 700 grams of matar dal which was seized as aforesaid, be confiscated to the State. He came to the finding that the petitioner had entered into a transac tion of transfer with a firm at Ghaziabad and the said quantity of the matar dal was being transported in pursuance thereof. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6-C of the Essen tial Commodities Act, The Commissioner affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal on 28-12- 1967,

(2.) THE order of confiscation Is challenged in the present writ petition on two grounds. It was submitted that the peti tioner did not contravene condition 9 of the aforesaid Licensing Order. Under that condition, a licensee is prohibited from selling foodgrains to a wholesaler in another Mandi or town either directly or through a licensee in form 'F'. It was urged that there was no evidence of any such sale. The finding was, therefore, without any evidence. I am not impress ed by this submission. The Collector as well as the Commissioner have relied up on admitted facts and circumstances of the case. They have held that it was admitted that the truck, which was loaded with the seized commodity was going to Ghaziabad. There was a false number plate beneath the driver's seat. Certain papers were found at the time of seizure which indicated that the consignment was required to be delivered to a firm at Ghaziabad. That firm was a wholesale dealer. The petitioner did not offer any adequate explanation. From all these facts, the authorities could legitimately feel satisfied that the goods were being transported in pursuance of a transaction of transfer. On that finding, the order of confiscation was within the purview of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) UNDER Section 7 of the Act. a per son, who contravenes any order made under Section 3, is punishable with the penalties mentioned in its various clauses. Under Clause (b), the Court has been em powered to forfeit any property like food-grains etc., in respect of which an order under Section 3 has been contravened. The proviso confers a discretion on the Court, for reasons to be recorded, to re frain from passing an order of forfeiture. It is thus clear that a person, who has contravened any order under Section 3, Is liable to punishment under Section 7. He is liable under Section 6-A to the con fiscation of the involved goods. An order of confiscation can be passed under Section 6-A provided the Collector is satis fied that there has been a contravention of an order under Section 3. The ques tion of mens rea is equally relevant 10 the satisfaction of the Collector under Section 6-A. In Kishori Lal Bihari v. Addl. Collector, 1968 All LJ 175= (AIR 1969 All 159), I held that for satisfying himself that the provisions of an order under Section 3 have been contravened, the Collector will have to take into consideration the question whether there was an intentional contravention of the cider. It was emphasised in that case that an order of confiscation under Section 6-A was provisional and subjectto the orders that may be passed by the Court under Section 7. If in a given case, the Collec tor orders confiscation of goods, it will be open to the Court to pass an order to the contrary, if, for reasons to be recorded, it thinks it fit to do so.