Satish S/O Basilal Somani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9174 Bom

                                        1       Application 1200 of 2017

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  Criminal Application No. 1200 of 2017

     *       Satish s/o. Bansilal Somani,
             Age 46 years,
             Occupation : Business,
             R/o Ter,
             Taluka & District Osmanabad.              ..    Applicant.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through Police Inspector,m
             Police Station Murud,
             Taluka & District Latur.

     2)      The Additional Collector, Latur,
             District Latur.                           .. Respondents.

                                   ----
     Shri. S.Y. Patil, Advocate, for Shri. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate,
     for applicant.

     Shri. S.D. Ghayal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
     respondents.
                                 ----

                                Coram:      A.M. DHAWALE, J.

                                Date:       29 November 2017

     ORAL JUDGMENT:


     1)               Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice. By consent of

the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at

admission stage.

                                                   2       Application 1200 of 2017

     2)               As 300 bags containing 50 kilograms of wheat

each of the applicant were seized on 26-7-2005 while in

transit, tempo driver and truck cleaner were enquired

about the source of the grains and as they could not

explain the source, S.C.C. No.4554 of 2005 was filed

against the applicant and 2 others before the 3rd Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Latur under Essential

Commodities Act. On merits all the accused were

acquitted. Since the goods seized were essential

commodity it was held that the concerned Collector shall

pass necessary orders regarding the seized goods.

3) Earlier the Collector Latur had passed order of

confiscation of the wheat. This order was not challenged.

Based on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate

dated 30 July 2014 the applicant again approached the

Collector and the Collector confirmed th earlier order

dated 15-12-2005 and rejected the application. The said

order was challenged by way of revision before the

Additional Sessions Judge Latur along with application for

condonation of delay. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge considered the provisions of section 6-C of the

3 Application 1200 of 2017

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as existing prior to the

amendment and held that only the State Government has

the power to conduct the appeal. Hence the revision was

dismissed. Hence this application under section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

4) Section 6-C of the Essential commodities Act,

1955 provides for appeal against order of confiscation

under section 6(A). It was amended long back by Act 34

of 1993 and the words "the State Government concerned

and the State Government" were substituted by "any

judicial authority appointed by the State Government and

the judicial authority". This amendment was not

considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even

in the year 2015.

5) The applicant has produced copy of notification

issued by the Law and Judiciary Department dated 15

September 2009 whereby all judicial officers presiding

over Court of Session in the State of Maharashtra are

appointed as judicial authority for the purpose of section

6-C. The notification reads as under :

4 Application 1200 of 2017

"LAW AND JUDICIAYR DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 dated 15th September 2009

NOTIFICATION

ESSENTIAL COMMODIIES ACT, 1955

No.CRC 1009/CR-82/IX - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6C of the Essential commodities act, 1955 (10 of 1955) and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf and in supersession of the Government Notification, Law and Judiciary Department No.PMS 2869/380-H(1) dated the 19th January 1970, the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints all judicial officers presiding over the Court of Session in the State of Maharashtra to be the Judicial Authorities for the purposes of said section 6C, within the limits of their respective jurisdiction.

By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra.

V.R. PATIL Joint Secretary to Government."

In view of this legal position it is not disputed that the

learned Additional Session Judge had jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal (and not revision). If there is some

delay in preferring appeal it should have been considered

on its own merits but the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has wrongly held that he had no jurisdiction.

Therefore, the application for condonation of delay

wrongly came to be rejected. Hence the impugned order

deserves to be set aside.

                                        5       Application 1200 of 2017

     6)               It appears that the order of confiscation was

passed in 2005 and the same was not challenged upto

2015. It is for the learned Appellate Court to consider the

factual aspects while deciding appeal.

7) Hence the application is allowed. the impugned

order dated 1-7-2017 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge Latur in Criminal Misc. Application No.31/2015 is

set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh

consideration. Rule is partly made absolute in above

terms.

Sd/-

(A.M. DHAVALE, J.)

rsl