RAYEES KHAN Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have preferred this revision under section 397, Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 44/ 2006 whereby affirming the impugned order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the Collector Ujjain in Case No. 125/05-06 Food whereby ordered for confiscation of vehicle No. MP 11 C. 7456 under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to EC Act for brevity) and also gave an option for deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- as the cost of the vehicle.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 4.1.2006 the Assistant Food Officer together with police personnel checked the vehicle No. MP 11 C. 7456 driven by the applicant No. 2 Munna s/o Papu Shah and found that this vehicle has been driven by him by filing control blue colour kerosene. The sample of the concerned fuel has been taken up by the Food Officer for examination and found it control blue colour kerosene, which is prohibited for using in the vehicle concerned. On the basis of that a case under section 3 read with section 7 of the EC Act has been registered against the driver as well as owner of the vehicle concerned and filed the case before the Collector, Ujjain for confiscation of vehicle concerned under section 6A of the EC Act. The concerned authority has issued the show cause notice to the owner and the driver of the vehicle concerned and after giving them opportunity of hearing vide impugned order dated 25.1.2006 ordered for confiscation of the vehicle concerned under section 6A of the EC Act and also gave an option for deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- as the cost of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the applicants have preferred an appeal under section 6C of the EC Act. Vide order dated 24.3.2006, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the aforesaid impugned order passed by the Collector, Ujjain and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision filed on behalf of the applicants.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the driver concerned has clearly submitted that the due to non-availability of the diesel on the road he purchased 10 litre diesel from the another truck driver and after filling it, he was coming to his destination at that time the concerned vehicle has been checked by the concerning Food Officer and on examination it is found that the vehicle was plying by using the blue colour kerosene in the diesel tank. This mistake of the non-applicant No. 2, i.e. driver is a bona fide mistake. In view of that the learned Court below has wrongly held the applicants guilty for the offence concerned and also punished them for deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- or for confiscation of the vehicle concerned. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Rayees Khan who is happened to be registered owner of the vehicle is not having any knowledge that his vehicle has been driven by the driver by filling the control kerosene. In view of that the forfeiture of the vehicle concerned is illegal and liable to be set aside and in alternative he submits that a reasonable fine may be imposed due to the aforesaid mistake committed by the non-applicant No. 2. In such type of cases the Collector has also imposed fine of Rs. 7,000/- and 10,000/- in other cases. Therefore, prayed for reduction of the fine amount concerned.