Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manohardas Narandas Sonecha on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 of 2013
(AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANOHARDAS NARANDAS SONECHA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKER, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
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.32 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 the respondent No.1 was allowed and the order of confiscation dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar as Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined well as the order of initiating appropriate proceedings under Section-7 of filing the complaint under Section-9 of the Essential Commodities Business (Regulation) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1977' for short) was set aside.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application are that the District Supply Officer, Jamnagar carried out checking on the business premises of respondent, who was doing the business of cold storage, wherein, the storage of food- grains was done. The checking was done and in the presence of the panchas, it was found that the respondent was involved in storage of 11040kg. of 'gram' (chana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the commodity' for short) which were valued at Rs.2,64,960/-.
3. Pursuant to inspection made by the District Supply Officer and pursuant to finding out, irregularities committed by the respondents has come on record, it was transpired that the respondent has committed the breach of Section 9 of the Order, 1977. Subsequent to such finding and after following due procedure, the authority has passed the seizure order. Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
4. Pursuant to completion of formalities, a show-cause notice dated 16.02.2010 came to be issued narrating the irregularities committed by the respondents. In response to the said show-cause notice issued by the Collector, Jamnagar, written reply was filed by the respondents. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the material available on record, the Collector, Jamnagar passed the order of confiscation on 30.04.2010, by which, 25% of the total stock value @ Rs.2,64,960/- i.e. Rs.66,240/- was confiscated. Being aggrieved by order dated 30.04.2010, the respondent filed an appeal against the order of confiscation before the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Court' for short). The appeal came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2010. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar passed the order below Exh.12 on 21.09.2012, whereby, the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Jamnagar as well as the order of initiating the appropriate proceedings under Section 7 of filing the complaint under Section 9 of the Order, 1977 were set aside. Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the applicant - State has preferred the present revision application.
6. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Meet Thakker for the applicant - State and learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the respondent.
7. Learned APP Mr. Meet Thakker for the applicant - State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2010 was not just and proper and contrary to facts on record. There was clear cut breach of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Order, 1977. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Court ought to have considered the fact as per Section 3 of the Order, 1997 the respondent ought to have displayed the closing and opening of the food articles by mentioning the price thereof. The fact that such stock was not maintained by the respondent itself would be a proper reason to initiate the proceedings against the respondent. The learned Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Sessions Court has not appreciated the said fact. Further there was no explanation with regard to the irregularities committed by the respondent, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is perverse and bad. It was further pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Court has also not properly appreciated the facts of panch rojkam and other documents, wherein, the offence committed by the respondent is clearly borne out. It was further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has gone on a finding, which is contrary to the fact of the case and settled law. It was pointed out that the only reason given for allowing the appeal is that the commodity i.e. 'gram' is not forming part of Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. It was pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this finding itself is perverse and on perusal of Schedule-1, even today, at item Nos.6 and 14, the commodities 'gram' or 'gram powder' is forming part of the Order, 1977. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is not only contrary to the factual aspect but also contrary to law and as a matter of fact, misinterpretation of the provisions of law. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prayers made in the present Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined revision application are required to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court below Exh.12 in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2010 is required to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar is required to be confirmed.
8. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the respondent has conceded the fact that the only ground taken in the appeal is with regard to non-inclusion of 'gram' in Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. It is not in dispute that the Stock Register as required by Section-3 of the Order, 1977 was not maintained by the respondent; however, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani was not able to dispute to the fact that even today, the commodity 'gram' is forming part of Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. There was no indication or nothing is brought on record that ever during the time of conducting the inquiry, the commodity 'gram' was deleted from Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani has requested to pass appropriate order as per the law.
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, the only issue that requires adjudication is with regard to the findings made by the learned Sessions Court, whereby, the appeal is allowed only on the ground that the product 'gram' is not forming part of 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 of the Order, 1977 since inception and is not borne out that the commodity was ever deleted from the Order, 1977. Even on perusal of the appeal memo preferred by the respondent, there is nothing on record to state as to on what basis of the contention raised by the respondent that the commodity 'gram' or 'gram dal' were not forming part of the Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977. That being the 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. In view of the same, there is no hesitation in recording that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is perverse in facts of the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/133/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined case and in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of the reasons given herein above, the present revision application is required to be considered and the same is allowed accordingly. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 21.09.2012 is set aside and the order passed by the Collector, Jamnagar dated 30.04.2010 is hereby confirmed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) F.S.KAZI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:33:45 IST 2025