LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-36

ABDUL RAJAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 02, 2006
ABDUL RAJAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 1359/2005 (Ashok Mahajan v. State of M.P.).

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-08-2005 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court, Khandwa dismissing the appeal filed by the applieation under S. 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') whereby the order passed by the competent authority constituted under the Act (Collector) directed to confiscate Soyabean 51.70 quintals seized from the possession of applicant, this revision-petition has been filed. 2A. It has been contended by Shri Siddhartha Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant that if the entire case of the prosecution is considered in toto, it would be difficult to uphold the confiscation of the impugned soyabean. Learned counsel has submitted that the burden of proof that the applicant is a "dealer" was on the prosecution and further it was required to demonstrate by them that the applicant regularly carries on the business. The case of prosecution if stretched to the last point, at the most it would reveal that at one point of time the applicant was possessing the impugned Soyabean exceeding statutory limit and if that is the position, according to learned counsel, no confiscation can take place. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court Manipur Administration v. M. Nila Chandra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1533 (1964 (2) Cri LJ 465). An alternative submission has also been putforth by learned counsel that the upper limit to possess the Soyabean is 30 quintals and thus, only 21.70 quintals ought to have been confiscated and not the entire quantity i.e. 51.70 quintals. In that context, he has placed reliance on the single Bench decision of Murarilal v. State of M.P., 1995 (2) MPWN 197.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel has argued in support of the impugned order.