Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jaydipsinh Ranubha Jadeja on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 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
JAYDIPSINH RANUBHA JADEJA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKER, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
=============================================
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.37 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 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
30.01.2010 on the business premises of respondent No.4 i.e. Shri
Ganesh 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 34,560kg., valued at
Rs.8,31,600/-. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1977, for short), the stock of
Rs.8,31,600/- 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
Rs.2,07,900/- on 30.04.2010. However, the respondents, claiming
to be the original owners of the commodity, preferred Criminal
Appeal No.37 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
side. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 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 the stock of the commodity would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
not have 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
commodity was deleted from the Order, 1977. Even on perusal of
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the written reply, it can be borne out that initially, respondent
No.4 gave the name of (i) Ranubha Shivubha Jadeja (ii) Shri Bhola
Nath and (ii) Nandlal Devram as the owners of the commodity in
question. However, it was categorically accepted by the
respondents that on inquiry made by the Collector, Jamngar, 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 releated to
transactions and then recalled that actually the present respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 being Raghubha Shivubha, Nehul Mahendralal and
Nalinkumar Shantilal Davda 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
a camouflage and the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/131/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the confiscation order and 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.37 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
