Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinodkumar Kanjibhai Sachdev on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 135 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINODKUMAR KANJIBHAI SACHDEV & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKER, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application is preferred by the applicant - State challenging the order passed below Exh.12 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2010 dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Court' for short), whereby, the appeal of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was allowed and the order of Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined confiscation dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar as well as the order of initiating appropriate proceedings under Section-7 of filing the complaint under Section-9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955' for short) was set aside.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the District Supply Officer, Jamnagar carried out checking on 09.01.2010 on the business premises of respondent No.4 i.e. Shri Nakum Cold Storage. Respondent No.4 was doing the business of cold storage, wherein, storage of food-grains was done. The inquiry was carried out after drawing the appropriate panchnama in presence of the panchas as well as collecting the record and the evidence. During checking, it was found out that respondent No.4 was indulging in an activity of storage of 566 bags of 'gram powder' (chana powder) (hereinafter referred to as 'the commodity' for short) which was 28,300kg., valued at Rs.6,79,000/-. Upon finding the irregularities and observing that respondent No.4 has committed breach of Section - 9 of the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order, 1977 Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1977, for short), the stock of Rs.6,79,200/- was confiscated. Pursuant to the confiscation of the commodity, a show cause notice came to be issued on 16.02.2010 by the present applicant narrating the irregularities committed by respondent No.4. In response of the show-cause notice, a written reply was submitted, wherein, the allegations made were refused. It is the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to 'the respondents' for short) that the name of the respondents was given by the management of original respondent No.4 during the course of investigation and despite the name was given by respondent No.4, the statements of the respondents were not recorded. However, on the basis of the written submissions given by respondent No.4, the Collector, Jamnagar passed the order of confiscation of 25% of total stock value, which came to 1,69,800/- on 30.04.2010. However, the respondents, claiming to be the original owners of the commodity, preferred Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar against the order of confiscation dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar. Pursuant to filing of the appeal, notice came to be issued by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar to the other side. Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined The learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar allowed the appeal preferred by respondents on 21.09.2012 against the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Jamnagar and order of initiating appropriate proceedings under Section-7 of filing the complaint under Section-9 of the Act, 1955 was set aside.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar, the applicant - State has preferred the present revision application.
3. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Meet Thakker for the applicant - State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the respondent - State.
4. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Court has given the findings, which are contrary to the facts on record and against the settled position of law. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is on two aspects. The first aspect is with regard to deletion of the Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined commodity 'gram' from Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that under Section 3 of the Act, 1955, the Order, 1977 came to be issued and as per the provisions contained in Section 2(5) of the Order, 1977, and more particularly, in Schedule-1, the commodity 'gram' is included at Sr.No.6 and the commodity 'gram dal' is included at Sr.No.14, and therefore, there was no reason for the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar to come to a conclusion that the commodities are not forming part of the Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977 . Therefore, on such aspect, the finding given by the learned Sessions Court is perverse and is required to be quashed. It was further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that with regard to the second limb of the observations made by the learned Sessions Court is the fact that respondent No.4 was fully aware about the stock of 'gram' which was lying in the storage of respondent No.4 and was disclosed as the commodity belonging to the other owners. On coming to the findings that the initial name given by respondent No.4 denying of any such ownership, subsequent name of the present respondents was given being the owners of the commodity in question. However, Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined such aspect is an afterthought to shirk away from the responsibility, which is given as per the provisions of the Order, 1977. The learned Sessions Court ought to have appreciated that during the course of investigation, it was found out that initially respondent No. 4 has denied that he was not aware about the owner of stock or the stored commodity in question, and thereafter, respondent No.4 has given the names of present respondents. The aspect is nothing but a camouflage to take away the responsibility of respondent No.4, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is not proper in the eye of law and also contrary to the facts on record. In view of the such submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present appeal may be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the respondents has submitted that the first limb of the argument of the commodity not being part of Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977 cannot be disputed. Even present commodity forms part of Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977, and therefore, it would not be proper to defend this limb of observation made by the learned Sessions Court. However, as far as the respondents are concerned, it is clear that they were the owners of the commodity in question. Respondent No.4 had categorically given the name of the present respondents as the owners of the commodity in question. That being the fact, the Collector, Jamnagar ought not have passed the order of confiscation without hearing the respondents. Therefore, even though, the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar is against respondent No.4, the present respondents deemed it fit to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar in view of the fact that the respondents are the actual owners of the commodity in question and any order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar would have an adverse effect on the business of the present respondents. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar that the respondents were declared to be proper owners before the Collector, Jamnagar was just and proper and if that was the case, any orders passed without joining them as party was bad and perverse, and therefore, the order of confiscation of 25% of total stock value would not have Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined been sustained. In wake of the submission, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the respondents has requested to dismiss the present revision application on the second limb of argument.
6. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the main thrust of the matter is with regard to two issues i.e. (i) whether the commodity 'gram' was forming part of the Schedule-1 of the Order and (ii) the locus of the respondents to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation of good passed by the Collector against respondent No.4. On the first thrust of the argument i.e. the inclusion of the commodity in the order, it is not in dispute and as agreed by both the parties that even today, the commodity 'gram' is forming part at item No.6 and the commodity 'gram dal' is forming part at item No.14 of the Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. On perusal of Schedule - 1 of the Order, 1977, it can be borne out that the commodity 'gram' is at item No.6 and 'gram dal' is at item No.14 of the Schedule-1. The commodities are there in the Schedule-1 since inception and is not borne out that if ever the commodity was deleted from the Order, 1977. Even on perusal of Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the appeal memo preferred by the respondents, there is nothing on record to state as to on what basis the contention is raised by the respondents that the commodity 'gram' or 'gram dal' were deleted from the Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. That being not a case, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the reasons and findings given by the learned Sessions Court is not only contrary to the facts but also complete misreading of law. The reason, which has been recorded by the learned Sessions Court, is that the 'gram' is not forming part of Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977 are not germane and contrary to the provisions of law. In wake of such observations, it would not be in dispute that the observations made by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar regarding the commodity being deleted from Schedule - 1 of the Order, 1977 is perverse and misreading and misinterpretation of the provision in particular Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977, and therefore, this observation made by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar cannot be sustained. As far as the second limb of argument is concerned, it would be necessary to go to the averments made by respondent No.4 in the response given to the show cause notice. On perusal of the written reply, it can be borne out that initially, respondent Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined No.4 gave the name of (i) Shri Kanji Keshavji Sachdev (ii) Shri Suresh Valji Gokani and (ii) Shri Narshi Vallabhdas Gokani as the owners of the commodity in question. However, it was categorically accepted by the respondents that on inquiry made by the Collector, Jamnagar, these three persons have given the statements that they were not aware about their ownerships of the commodity in question and this aspect has categorically accepted by respondent No.4. However, further explanation is given by respondent No.4 that after denial by the owners, respondent No.4 further conducted inquiry by asking the vehicle owners and other people related to transactions and then recalled that actually the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being Vinodkumar Kanjibhai Sachdev, Narandasji Valji and Jayantilal Vallabdas were the original owners of the commodity in question. This was the only aspect, on the basis of which, the appeal was preferred by the respondents and came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar. On the basis of the averments made in the written statements to the show cause notice, it can be categorically seen that such an aspect of bringing the respondents and showing them as actual owners is nothing but a camouflage and the Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined attempt made by respondent No.4 to shirk away and get away from the irregularities committed by respondent No.4. There is nothing on record except a mere statement of respondent No.4 that the present respondents were owners of the commodity in question. Even this aspect is an afterthought after giving name of other people, who disowned the statement of respondent No.4, and therefore, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court to come to a conclusion that the appeal preferred by the respondents is nothing but an attempt made by them to cover up the irregularities, which is categorically accepted by respondent No.4. This aspect has been considered by the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar, which is contrary to the facts on record. Further attempt made by learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the respondents is that the Collector, Jamnagar has passed an order of initiating appropriate proceedings under Section 7 of filing the complaint under Section 9 of the Act and atleast that should be stayed. However, the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar is against respondent No.4, who has not preferred any appeal against the order of the Collector, Jamnagar. The appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is mainly against the confiscation order and Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined therefore, even this submission made by learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the respondents cannot be countenanced. In view of the same and the observations made herein above, when this Court has come to conclusion that the finding given by the learned Sessions Court is contrary to the fact on record as well as contrary to law and, more particularly, Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the present revision application filed by the applicant - State is required to be allowed, and accordingly, is allowed. The order passed by learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar dated 21.09.2012 below Exh.12 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2010 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar dated on 30.04.2010 is hereby confirmed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) F.S.KAZI Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:53 IST 2025