Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shantilal Ranchhoddas Pabari Owner Of ... on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 129 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANTILAL RANCHHODDAS PABARI OWNER OF PABARI
ENTERPRISE
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKER, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
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.23 in
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010 dated 27.09.2012 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 30.03.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 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 43686kg. of 'gram' (chana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the
commodity' for short) which were valued at Rs.9,61,092/-.
3. Pursuant to inspection made by the District Supply
Officer and pursuant to finding out, irregularities committed by
the respondent, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
4. Pursuant to completion of formalities, a show-cause
notice dated 06.02.2010 came to be issued narrating the
irregularities committed by the respondent. In response to the said
show-cause notice issued by the Collector, Jamnagar, written reply
was filed by the respondent. After hearing both the parties and
after perusing the material available on record, the Collector,
Jamnagar passed the order of confiscation on 30.03.2010, by which,
5% of the total stock value @ Rs.9,61,092/- i.e. Rs.48,054 was
confiscated. Being aggrieved by order dated 30.03.2010, 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. 24 of 2010. After hearing the
parties, the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar passed the order
below Exh.11 on 27.09.2012, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 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 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Meet
Thakker for the applicant - State has submitted that the impugned
order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal
No.24 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
The learned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
that the prayers made in the present revision application are
required to be allowed and the order passed by the learned
Sessions Court below Exh.18 in Criminal Appeal No. 24 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/129/2013 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 below Exh.23 in Criminal Appeal
No.24 of 2010 dated 27.09.2012 is set aside and the order passed by
the Collector, Jamnagar dated 30.03.2010 is hereby confirmed. Rule
made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
F.S.KAZI
