RAJMOHAN KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ''As common point of dispute is involved, both these revisions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) ADMITTED facts of both the cases are as under: - Cr. Revision No.422/03: On 28th December 2002, during vast checking, truck No.M.P.09 -D -0553 was inspected and found that its Driver Mohd. Shabbir was driving the same while using kerosene as fuel. Observing that it is breach of Section 3(1)(2) of the Order - ''Kerosene (Upyog Par Niyantran Evam Adhiktam Keemat Niyantran) Aadesh 1993 (The Order of 1993) and punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act 1995 (The Act), a notice dated 31st December 02 was given to its owner Rajmohan Kapoor, the petitioner herein, as to why the truck be not confiscated. It was replied by him vide reply Dt.31st December 2002 and admitted that during inspection, it was found that it was driven by the driver while using kerosene but in the last he has mentioned that the driver used kerosene without his knowledge and hence being first fault it may be pardoned. Considering the aforesaid reply as admission of the petitioner, vide order dated 31st December 2003, passed in Cr. Case No.32/B -121 -2002 -2003, the Collector Vidisha has confiscated an amount of Rs.25,000/ - in lieu of the aforesaid truck and released the truck. Feeling aggrieved with this order, petitioner filed Cr.A.No.19/03, which has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge Vidisha vide impugned order dated 31st July 2003. Feeling aggrieved from this order, this revision has been preferred. Cr. Revision No. 427/03: On 28th December 2002, during vast checking truck No.MKO -9144 was inspected and found that its driver Harpal Singh was driving the same while using kerosene as fuel. Observing that it is breach of Section

(3.) SHRI D.R. Sihare, for the State has countered the contentions of Shri Bahirani and has submitted that drivers were the agents of the petitioners and their act has been admitted by the petitioners by their reply of notice dated 31st December 2002. Petitioners gave reply after seeking information from their drivers. With regard to another contention, Shri Sihare has submitted that vehicle is required to be confiscated and not commodity as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act.