MANOHARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a case Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Under the said section, accused petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur for contravention of condition (8) of license granted to the accused petitioner under the Rajasthan Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Order ). The accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs. 1,000/-, as fine and in default of payment of which further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also ordered the forfeiture of 34 tins of the oil seized from the accused petitioner.

(2.) IN a revision petition which was filed by the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the learned Judge maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner but modified the sentence awarded. The accused petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default further simple imprisonment for three months.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused petitioner and the fine and sentence imposed by the learned appellate court and rightly so. There is sufficient material on record that condition (8) of the Order has been contravened by the accused petitioner and, therefore, the accused was rightly convicted Under Section 3/7 of the Act for the contravention of condition (8) of the Order. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the learned court has erred in not allowing him to argue about the forfeiture of 34 tins. He submits that a revision petition was filed against the conviction, the judgment was one and in para 1 of the grounds of the revision it is clearly mentioned that a penalty of forfeiture of property i. e. vegetable oil tins was wrongly passed. While a matter is under revision it is open for the court to decide the matters involved therein in case those matters are questions of law. According to the learned advocate the contravention of Clause (8) of the Order made Under Section 3 of the Act only related to two tins of vegetable oil and there is no contravention as far as the 34 tins are concerned. He therefore, submits that the seizure of 34 tins of hydrogenated vegetable oil was not warranted by law and as such those tins should not have even been seized and forfeited.