DHARANI TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An intricate and important question of interest is raised for resolution in this criminal revision case. The question is : What is the true scope and extent of the enquiry envisaged under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ? The answer to the question must necessarily depend on the legislative language employed in the section. Section 6-B reads:

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the peti ioner that a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" implies the examination of the concerned person and his witnesses, if any, produced by him. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ramaswamy, submits that the expression contemplates only an opportunity of being heard in person or through Counsel and the enquiring authority is not obliged to examine either the person, concerned or his witnesses.

(3.) The Essential Commodities Act was enacted in 1955 with the dominant object and intendment of ensuring equitable distribution and adequate availability at fair prices of essential commodities defined or notified under the Act. But the administrative and penal measures devised for dealing with the defaulting persons under the Act were rendered ineffective by getting round the provisions of the Act by some sections of trade and middlemen. In order to make the administration of the Act more effective, sections 6-A to 6-D were inserted by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Amending Act (XXV of 1966). Section 6-A provides for the confiscation of the essential commodties seized for the contravention of an order made under section 3 of the Act. Section 6-B prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Collector before an order of confiscation is made by him under section 6-A. Under section 6-C an appeal is provided for a person aggrieved against an order passed under section 6-A.