DHARAMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this revision against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 2/99 on 10-5-2001 arising out of the order dated 13-10-97 passed by the Collector (Food), District Ujjain in Case No. 54/93 directing confiscation of the essential commodities seized by the officials of Revenue and Food Department on 30-4-97 from the grain-shop of firm Shaitanmal-Deepchand. The applicant was the proprietor of the said firm.

(2.) THE factual matrix in narrow compass as under:-On 30-4-97, a surprise checking of the shop of the applicant was done by the officials of Revenue and Food Department and they found that the stock of scheduled commodities was not maintained from 26-4-93 to 29-4-93, monthly report of scheduled commodities was not sent and the stock of wheat, gram, maize Raje Peasecod (Batla) and linseed (Alsi) was found in excess and declared as shown in the stock-register whereas, the stock of soyabean was found less than the stock mentioned in the stock-register. Therefore, it was alleged that the applicant-firm has committed the breach of the Part 8 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'order') and condition Nos. 3 (a), (b), (c), 4, 6, 8 and 11 of the License issued thereunder. The articles were seized and handed over on Supurdginama to the applicant. Thereafter, the Assistant Food Officer, Khachrod submitted the report and on the basis of the said report, show-cause notice was issued to the applicant. The applicant submitted reply and after hearing the applicant, the Collector passed the order dated 13-10-97 for forfeiture of the licence security amount of Rs. 2,000/- and all the stock of grains which was found in excess was confiscated in favour of the State Government under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short), against which the appeal was filed and the same has also been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Collector has not applied his mind before the issuance of show-cause notice, which is evident from the record and the Asstt. Food Inspector, Khachrod, who had inspected the shop alongwith other officials of Revenue and Food Department, though ordered for his examination as a witness, but neither he was examined nor the original documents were filed before the Confiscating Authority, i. e. , Collector (Food), Ujjain. He has also submitted that the confiscation order passed by the Collector on 13-10-97 is nowhere showing the breach of the condition of any order made under Section 3 of the Act. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing was not given and the Confiscating Authority has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 6-A and 6-B of the Act.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that full opportunity was given to the applicant and the Collector as well as the Lower Appellate Court have considered the matter in its proper perspective. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by them. Hence, according to him, there is no substance in this revision petition.