Gujarat High Court
Lamba Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/734/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 734 of 2015
==========================================================
LAMBA JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. It transpires that on the earlier occasion, despite several
calls, none remained present for the applicant, and therefore, the
matter came to be adjourned while observing the principles of
natural justice. Today also, the situation remains the same.
2. However, considering the age of the matter, the Court has
taken up the matter solely on the basis of the material on record
and after hearing the learned APP.
3. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed
under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated
06.10.2015 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/734/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
Khambhalia, in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2014, whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2014
passed by respondent No.2 (Collector, Civil Supplies Department)
in Case No. PRV/KHARA/6A/CASE/1/2014 came to be dismissed.
By the said order dated 30.06.2014, respondent No.2 directed
confiscation of stock worth Rs.3,40,213.30/- and forfeiture of the
security deposit of Rs.2,500/- on account of established breaches
of various conditions under the Gujarat Essential Commodities
(Licensing to Fair Price Shop) Order, 2004, the Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2001, and the terms of the licence held by
the petitioner for operating a fair price shop.
4. Learned APP for the respondents has submitted that the
impugned orders are well-reasoned and based on the inspection
conducted on 19.09.2013, wherein multiple irregularities were
noticed, including discrepancies in stock records, failure to
distribute withdrawn stock, improper maintenance of accounts,
storage of commodities at unauthorized places, and admissions
made by the petitioner's administrator in the panchnama and
statements recorded. It is further submitted that the explanations
provided by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice
dated 11.02.2014 were duly considered and rejected by both the
original authority and the appellate court, as they were found to be
unsatisfactory and unsupported by any cogent evidence. The
learned APP has urged that no perversity, illegality, or impropriety
is found in the impugned orders warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/734/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
5. Having perused the record, including the petition, annexures,
and the grounds urged, this Court finds no merit in the revision
application. The petitioner's contentions regarding condonation of
alleged breaches--such as non-display of samples, failure to
obtain consumer signatures on bills, delay in distribution due to
personal reasons (illness of the administrator's mother), non-entry
of stock in accounts, unauthorized storage, retention of
undistributed bills, and stock discrepancies--are essentially factual
defences that were duly examined and rejected by the authorities
below. The record reveals that out of eleven charges, three were
condoned, and the remaining were upheld based on documentary
evidence, including the panchnama, stock verification, and the
petitioner's own admissions, which indicate systematic violations
aimed at personal gain, such as selling surplus quantities at profit.
6. The explanations tendered, including reliance on medical
certificates and claims of bona fide mistakes, do not outweigh the
prima facie evidence of breaches under Conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7(b),
7(e), 7(f), 7(g), 8(c), 8(d) of the contract; Conditions 3, 4(1), 7, 9 of
the licence; Paragraphs 5(2), 5(5), 7(2) of the Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2001; and Paragraphs 14(2), 14(5), 14(9)
of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licensing to Fair Price
Shop) Order, 2004. There is no evidence of mala fides on the part
of the inspecting authorities, and the plea of prior good conduct
does not mitigate the violations that undermine the public
distribution system meant for vulnerable consumers. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/734/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
punishment of confiscation is proportionate and within the
discretionary powers of the authority, considering the value of the
stock involved and the nature of the infractions. The appellate
court has rightly confirmed the findings without any jurisdictional
error.
7. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to
reappreciate evidence or substitute its view unless a glaring
illegality is shown, which is not the case here. The impugned
orders are neither arbitrary nor perverse, and the grounds raised
fail to make out any case for interference.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision
Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The record
and proceedings, if any, be transmitted to the concerned court
forthwith.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
