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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
