Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs The Amarlal Food Products on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 176 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THE AMARLAL FOOD PRODUCTS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ROHAN RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
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-5 in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011 dated
11.1.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar,
whereby the appeal of the respondent was allowed and order
dated 28.1.2011 passed by learned Collector, District
Bhavnagar was modified to the extent of 5% confiscation
which was alteration from 50% of confiscation from the total
goods sale.
2. The facts that gave rise of filing of the present revision
application is that District Civil Supply Officer carried out a
surprise checking on 13.7.2009 at the premises of the
respondent. The respondent was engaged in the business of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
food products. The District Civil Supply Officer in presence of
Panchas and after collecting the records and evidence, found
certain irregularities which was mainly related to
unaccounted stock of Sugar, Palmolin Oil as well as improper
maintenance of stock register of essential commodity. Upon
the information of irregularities and on allegation that the
respondent had committed breach of Section 9 of the Gujarat
Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business)
Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'order of 1977' for
short) and also as per the Section 16, 23 and 3(2) of the
Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence, Control and Stock
Regulations) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Commodities Act'), the stock of sugar valued at Rs.89,625/-,
the stock of Pamolin Oil valued at Rs.36,895/- and stock of
refined flour valued at Rs.2,52,350/- were confiscated.
3. Pursuant to the confiscation of the stock , a show-cause
notice came to be issued on 20.10.2009 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
on 28.01.2011, whereby out of total stock seized of
Rs.3,78,870/-, 50% stock of Rs.1,89,435/- was ordered to be
confiscated.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2011 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
No. 33 of 2011. On filing of the appeal, notice was issued and
after bearing both the parties, by way of order below Exh-5 in
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011, the learned Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar by way of order dated 11.1.2012, 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. Though served, none appeared for the
respondents.
6. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is not in dispute that there were certain
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
irregularities which were found from the respondent. It is not
in dispute that unaccounted stock of sugar, palmolin Oil were
found and it is also not in dispute that stock register of the
essential commodities were not properly maintained. It was
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 50% to 5%. It was further submitted that the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is non-speaking and
without assigning any cogen reasons. The explanation given
by the respondent -agency is not tenable in eye of law and the
same is not believable. 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. Though served, none has appeared for the respondent.
Relying on the judgment passed by this Court, particularly in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
case of State of Gujarat v. Rajnikant Maganbhai Raiyani,
reported in 2016 (0) GUJHC 2465, 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 present revision
application preferred by the State authority.
8. On perusal of the material and considering the
arguments canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant,
certain issues are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that there
were certain irregularities which were found from the
respondent. It is not in dispute that unaccounted stock of
sugar, palmolin Oil were found and it is also not in dispute
that stock register of the essential commodities were not
properly maintained. 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 improper maintenance of stock register of essential
commodites, the respondent was involved in the activity of
hoarding of stock or in any activity of black marketing.
Therefore it is fact that neither the learned Collector nor the
learned Sessions Court has made any observation with regard
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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 50% to
confiscation of 5% was just and proper. It would be true that
the learned Collector, Bhavnagar directed confiscation of said
goods and learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of
confiscation from 50% to 5% on the ground that the improper
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 50%. Therefore, on that basis the
learned Sessions Court has independently applied its mind
and discretion for reduction from 50% to 5%.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
allegations of black marketing or hoarding due to non-
maintenance of stock register. Further, the learned Sessions
Court, Bhavnagar has categorically relied on Circular dated
22.8.1989 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 22.8.1989, when the reduction is done
of confiscation of stock from 50% 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
