Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Shivanand Prabhu on 12 December, 2023

                                          -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:45321
                                                CRL.P No. 4285 of 2018




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

               DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                     BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4285 OF 2018
            BETWEEN:
            STATE OF KARNATAKA
            BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            KAVOOR P.S.,
            KAVOOR,
            REPRESENTED BY
            STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT BUILDING,
            BANGALORE - 01.
                                                        ...PETITIONER
            (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
            AND:
            SHIVANAND PRABHU
            AGED 60 YEARS,
            S/O. LATE DHAMODHAR PRABHU,
            202, GANGA RESIDENCY,
            BEHIND KAPIKAD SCHOOL,
Digitally   BEJAI, MANGALURU - 575001.
signed by                                              ...RESPONDENT
SUMA
Location:   (BY SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
HIGH            SRI. DIVYATEJ H.N., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
            OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
            ORDER DATED 16.03.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.118/2016 BY
            THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
            D.K., MANGALORE.

                   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
            THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC:45321
                                      CRL.P No. 4285 of 2018




                          ORDER

The State has filed this petition challenging an order

dated 16.03.2018 passed by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada in Criminal

Appeal No.118/2016 by which, it held that the appeal filed

under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

was maintainable before it.

2. Based on certain information received by the

Deputy Commissioner, two vehicles were seized with some

quantity of diesel that was allegedly illegally transported

without any licence. A report under Section 6A of the

Essential Commodities Act was filed against the owner and

the driver of the vehicles. The Deputy Commissioner in

terms of an order dated 30.05.2016 released the vehicles,

subject to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,75,000/- and

Rs.80,000/- respectively and sold 700 liters of diesel and

confiscated the amount to the State. Being aggrieved by the

said order, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the

District Court under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities

Act. The State raised an objection regarding maintainability

NC: 2023:KHC:45321

of the appeal, in view of the notifications dated 25.10.2010

and 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government under

Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, entrusting the

powers of Appellate Authority unto the Minister for Food and

Civil Supplies. The District Court in terms of the impugned

order relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of Ms.Vasundara Traders Vs. State of

Karnataka - 1977(1) Kar.L.J 339 and in the case of

Thakur Das by LRs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -

1978(1) Kar.L.J 1 and held that the District Court is

entitled to hear appeals against an order of confiscation that

may be made by the licencing authority under Section 6A of

the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, it held that the

appeal was maintainable.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is before

this Court in this petition.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader

submitted that under Section 6C of the Essential

Commodities Act, it is the authority appointed by the State

Government which is entitled to hear the appeals against an

NC: 2023:KHC:45321

order passed by the licencing authorities. She submitted that

by virtue of the notifications referred above, it is the Minister

for Food and Civil Supplies which is the Appellate Authority

under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, and

therefore, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal. She contended that the judgments

relied upon by the District Court while holding that the

appeal was maintainable were prior to the notifications dated

25.10.2010 and 14.06.2013. She therefore, submits that the

impugned order holding that the appeal was maintainable

before the District Court is liable to be rejected.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the

respondent submitted that the Minister for Food and Civil

Supplies is a quasi judicial authority appointed by the State

Government and therefore, it is the District Court which is

entitled to entertain appeals, particularly, when the

commodities belonging to the respondent was seized and

confiscated to the State and an onerous condition was

imposed upon the owner of the vehicles for release. He

therefore submits that the appeal was maintainable.

NC: 2023:KHC:45321

6. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

petitioner/State and learned Senior counsel for the

respondent.

7. An order passed under Section 6A of the

Essential Commodities Act, is appealable under Section 6E of

the Essential Commodities Act, which reads as follows:

"6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.- Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, [the judicial authority appointed under section 6C] shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, [any other court, tribunal or authority] shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of

NC: 2023:KHC:45321

such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.]"

8. Therefore, the power to entertain appeals is to

be invested by the State Government in any judicial

authority. It is stated that in exercise of powers under

Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, notifications

dated 25.10.2010 and 14.06.2013 were issued, which reads

as under:

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: D£Á¸À 252 E¨sÀvÀ 09, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.10.2010

¥Àæ¸ÁªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CUÀvåÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ (¸Á«¥À) ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt DzÉÃ±À 1992 ºÁUÀÆ CUÀvåÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955gÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 6(¹) gÀr ªÀåªÀºÀj¸À¯ÁUÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÄÀ , DºÁgÀ, £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ (1) gÀAvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå DºÁgÀ, £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀgÄÀ CAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁVgÀÄvÁægÉ."

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:D£Á¸À 81 E¨sÀvÀ 2013, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.06.2013

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CUÀvåÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ (¸Á«¥À) ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt DzÉÃ±À 1992 PÁè¸ï 20gÀr

NC: 2023:KHC:45321

£ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀrUÀ¼À CªÀiÁ£ÀvÄÀ Û CxÀªÁ gÀzÝÀ w §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955gÀ ¸ÉPëÀ£ï6(¹) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CfðUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, DºÁgÀ, £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (1) gÀAvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå DºÁgÀ, £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀgÄÀ CAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁVgÀvÁÛgÉ."

Therefore, as the matter now stands, for the purposes

of Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, the Appellate

Court is not the District Court, but the Minister for Food and

Civil Supplies and hence, the impugned order passed by the

District Court holding that the appeal is maintainable before

it, is liable to be set aside. Besides this, it is relevant to note

that the District Court in order to hold that the appeal was

maintainable before it, relied upon the judgment of a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vasundara

referred supra and held that the authority constituted by the

State Government under Section 6E of Essential

Commodities Act to hear appeals against the order of