RAHUL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties matter is heard finally. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Morena in Cr. Appeal No. 159/2015, confirming the order passed the Collector on dated 10.7.2015 by which a truck bearing No. MP 07 GA 3590 has been confiscated under provision of Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity the Act of 1955).

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owned the aforesaid truck bearing No. MP 07 GA 3590 and is plying it for transportation purpose. On 19.1.2015 between Joura to Morena road; the vehicle was caught by the Fertilizer Inspector and found 100 bags of urea weighted about 50 kg per bag, thus the total weight of urea come to around 5000 kg. The said vehicle was seized by the Fertilizer Inspector and ultimately by the impugned order the aforesaid vehicle has been confiscated under the provision of Section 6-A of the Act of 1955.

(3.) Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per provision of Section 6 -A of the Act of 1955; the vehicle could not have been confiscated because no opportunity of hearing has been given to the owner of the vehicle before passing the order of confiscation. On another ground, the vehicle could not have been confiscated because proviso 2 of Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 provides that an option must be given to the owner of the vehicle to pay in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding to market price on the date of seizure of the essential commodities (Urea in the present case) said to be carried by such vehicle. Here the petitioner is ready to pay fine amount not exceeding to market price of the urea in question. If opportunity of hearing would have been afforded then this option would have been exercised by the owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs. State of Andhra the matter of Pradesh (AIR 1994 SC 2666). The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that in terms of mandate, goods seized are liable to be confiscated only if the Collector is satisfied about violation of the Control Orders. The language of the Section and its setting indicate that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. Besides this, petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the matter of Rayees Khan and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007 (1) MPLJ 260 as well as Rajmohan Kapoor Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in (2010 (1) EFR 197.