Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Tajasbhai Lalitbhai Shah on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 of 2013
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
TAJASBHAI LALITBHAI SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ROHAN RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present revision application is preferred by State of
Gujarat being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed
below Exh-6 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2011 dated
19.10.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhavnagar, whereby the appeal of the respondent was
allowed and order dated 22/28.02.2011 passed by learned
Collector, District Bhavnagar was modified to the extent of 5%
confiscation which was alteration from 40% of confiscation
from the total goods sale.
2. The facts that gave rise of filing of the present revision
application is that the authority carried out a surprise
checking on 17.5.2010 at the premises of the respondent. The
respondent was engaged in the business of wheat. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
authority found certain irregularities which was mainly
related to non-maintenance of stock register as well as the
lack of display board of price and stock. Upon the information
of irregularities and on allegation that the respondent had
committed breach of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Gujarat
Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business)
Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'order of 1977' for
short) and the total stock of Rs.5,21,640/- was confiscated.
3. Pursuant to the confiscation of the stock , a show-cause
notice came to be issued on 30.8.2010 by the applicant
narrating the irregularities committed by the respondent.
Pursuance to the issuance of the show-cause notice, a written
reply was submitted by respondent. After perusing the
material on record, the Collector, Bhavnagar passed an order
on 22/28.2.2011, whereby 40% of the amount of total stock
was ordered to be confiscated.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22/28.2.2011 passed
by the learned Collector, District Bhavnagar, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
No. 26 of 2011. On filing of the appeal, notice was issued and
after bearing both the parties, by way of order below Exh-6 in
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2011, the learned Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar by way of order dated 19.10.2012, partly allowed
the appeal and modified the order passed by the learned
Collector, Bhavnagar to the extent of confiscation of 5% of the
total cost. This order passed by the learned Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar is impugned in the present revision application.
5. I have heard Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the
respondent.
6. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is not in dispute that there were certain
irregularities which were found from the respondent. It is not
in dispute that the stock register was not maintained. It is
also not in dispute that price of the commodities were not
displayed. That being the case, the mandatory requirement as
per Section 9(1) and (2) of the order, 1977 was breached and
that being the case, the authorities ought to have drawn a
presumption of black marketing against the respondent and
would not have reduced the order of confiscation to 5%. It was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
further submitted by Mr. Raval, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that there is no proper explanation with regard to
irregularities found from the spot of the premises of the
respondent and the learned Sessions Judge has not given any
cogent reason as to why the stock confiscation is reduced
from 40% to 5%. The only explanation given by the learned
Sessions Court is that the punishment given by the Collector,
Bhavnagar is too harsh in nature and on final breach of non-
maintenance of stock register, there cannot be an order of
40% of confiscation of goods. Therefore, the appellate
authority has modified the order of the learned Collector
without giving cogent reasons and, therefore, the order
passed by the appellate authority is required to be quashed
and set-aside and the order passed by the learned Collector,
Bhavnagar is required to be confirmed.
7. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the
respondent submitted that the authority i.e. Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar has given cogent reasons and has
observed that the confiscation of 40% of goods, which is
pursuant to technical breach, would be too harsh a
punishment. Relying on the judgment passed by this Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
particularly in case of State of Gujarat v. Rajnikant
Maganbhai Raiyani, reported in 2016 (0) GUJHC 2465, it was
pointed out that the scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction
is very limited and once the Sessions Court has exercised its
discretion and reduced the penalty, this court should not
interfere with the same. On the basis of such submission, Mr.
Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent has requested
not to entertain the present revision application preferred by
the State authority.
8. On perusal of the material and considering the
arguments canvassed by learned advocates for both the
parties, certain issues are not in dispute. It is not in dispute
that the stock register for certain time was not maintained by
the respondent. It is not in dispute that the order passed by
the learned Collector only singles out the breach in provisions
of Section 9 of the order of 1977. There are no allegations
either in the show-cause notice or in the order passed by the
learned Collector, Bhavnagar, which discusses the fact that
pursuant to non-maintenance of stock register, the respondent
was involved in the activity of hoarding of stock or in any
activity of black marketing. Therefore it is fact that neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
the learned Collector nor the learned Sessions Court has
made any observation with regard to the black marketing or
hoarding vis-a-vis the present respondent and also on the
basis that the technical breach by the respondent had resulted
in the activity of hoarding or black marketing.
9. That being the case, the only aspect that remains to be
seen is whether the reduction made by the learned appellate
Court i.e. learned Sessions Court from confiscation of 40% to
confiscation of 5% was just and proper. It would be true that
the learned Collector, Bhavnagar directed confiscation of said
food-grains and learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of
confiscation from 40% to 5% on the ground that the non-
maintenance of stock register, which has not resulted into
black marketing, would be a too harsh a ground to give an
order of confiscation of 40%. Therefore, on that basis the
learned Sessions Court has independently applied its mind
and discretion for reduction from 40% to 5%. That being the
case, it would not be proper to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar setting aside the
order of reduction of confiscation penalty in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction as there is no allegations of black
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/165/2013 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
marketing or hoarding due to non-maintenance of stock
register.
10. Further, the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar has
categorically relied on Circular dated 22.9.1989 which
envisages that the non-maintenance of stock register or bills
which would not result into black marketing, would be too
technical a breach. Therefore, placing reliance on the Circular
dated 22.9.1989, when the reduction is done of confiscation of
stock from 40% to 5%, this Court does not see any infirmity in
the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar.
In view of the same, the present revision application is
misconceived and dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is
discharged.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
