Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jamnadas Mathurdas on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 130 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JAMNADAS MATHURDAS & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application is preferred by the applicant -
State challenging the order dated 21.09.2012 passed below Exhibit-
11 in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2010 passed by the learned 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the
learned Sessions Court' for short), whereby, the appeal preferred by
the respondent No.1 was allowed and the order of confiscation dated
30.04.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar as well as the order of
initiating appropriate proceedings under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 19955 followed by filing a complaint under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
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 no. 2 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 no. 2 was involved in storage of 200
bags of 'Chickpea flour' (chana powder) the quantity of which was
10,000 kilograms (hereinafter referred to as 'the commodity' for
short) which valued at Rs.2,40,000/-.
3. Pursuant to an inspection conducted by the District Supply
Officer, various irregularities committed by the respondent were
brought on record. However, upon examination, it transpired that the
respondent had violated the provisions of Section 9 of the Order,
1977. In consequence thereof, the competent authority, after
following due procedure had passed the seizure order.
4. On completion of necessary formalities, a show-cause notice
dated 05.02.2010 came to be issued narrating the irregularities
committed by the respondent. In response to the said show-cause
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
notice issued by the Collector, Jamnagar, written reply was filed by
the respondent. The Collector, Jamnagar, after hearing both the
parties and having perused the material available on record, passed
the order of confiscation on 30.04.2010, ordered confiscation of 25%
of the total stock valued at Rs.60,000/-. 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. 34 of 2010.
After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar
passed an order below Exhibit-11 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 the
Essential Commodities Act, following the complaint under Section 9
of the Order, 1977 were set aside.
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. Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the applicant - State. Though served, no one has appeared on
behalf of the respondent nor the respondent had appeared to present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
his case.
7. Learned Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the applicant - State has submitted that the impugned order
passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.34 of
2010 was not just and proper and the same is contrary to the facts on
record. It appears that there was clear cut breach of Sections 3, 8
and 9 of the Order, 1977. It was submitted by Mr. Hardik Soni,
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 remains
that such stock was not maintained by the respondent itself which
would be a proper reason to initiate the proceedings against the
respondent. 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.
6.1. It was further pointed out by Mr. Hardik Soni, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
clearly borne out. It was further submitted that the learned Sessions
Court has given a finding, which is contrary to the facts of the
present 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 prayer made in the present revision application is required
to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court
below Exhibit-11 in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2010 is required to be
quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Collector,
Jamnagar is required to be confirmed.
7. Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State - applicant and perused the material available on
record. In the instant case, the only issue that requires adjudication
is with regard to the findings returned by the learned Sessions Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
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. These commodities are forming part in the
Schedule-1 of the Order, 1977 since inception and that the
commodity was never ever deleted from the Order, 1977. Even on
perusal of the record, there is nothing on record to state as to on
what basis 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 to the facts of the case and law and the same is
required to be quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the reasoning given herein-above, the present
revision application is required to be considered and the same is
allowed accordingly. The order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the
learned Sessions Court below Exhibit-11 in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/130/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
2010 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 30.04.2010
passed by the Collector, Jamnagar in is hereby confirmed. Rule
made absolute. No order as to costs.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
