Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State on 29 April, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.975 of 2019
and
CMP(MD)No.11500 of 2019
Saravanan : Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The State
By the Inspector of Police,
C.S.C.I.D, Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.60 of 2015) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under section
397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment,
dated 11.09.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A No.124 of 2015, confirming the order,
dated 01.10.2015 passed by the District Collector and District
Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in Na.Ka.No.1/14213/2015 confiscating the
seized rice and imposing a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- on the vehicle
bearing registration No.TN-23-T-9099.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment,
dated 11.09.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A No.124 of 2015, confirming the order,
dated 01.10.2015 passed by the District Collector and District
Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in Na.Ka.No.1/14213/2015 confiscating the
seized rice and imposing a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- on the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN-23-T-9099.
2.It is seen from the records that on 16.03.2015, the
respondent police registered the case against the petitioner and 11
others, in Crime No.60 of 2015 for the alleged offence under clause
6(2)(3)(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 on the ground that on 6.03.2015, the Lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-23-T-9099 was found in possession of
62 bags of PDS rice. The respondent police, after registering the
said case, sent a report to the District Collector, Tirunelveli District
to initiate confiscation proceedings contemplated under section 6(a)
of the Essential Commodities Act. The Adjudicating Authority on
receipt of the report, issued notice to the petitioner and others,
contemplated under section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1955, calling upon them to appear for an enquiry. The petitioner
appeared before the Adjudicating Authority, pursuant to the notice.
As the Adjudicating Authority insisted the petitioner to sign in a
blank paper to enable him to complete the enquiry and to exonerate
all the accused from the charges, the petitioner put his signature in
the blank paper and went back. In the interregnum, the
Adjudicating Authority, by his order, dated 01.10.2015 confiscated
the rice bags and imposed a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- against the
vehicle. As against the confiscation , an appeal was filed before the
Appellate Court namely III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli, in C.A No.124 of 2015. The Appellate Court, by order
dated, 11.09.2017, confirmed the order of the Adjudicating
Authority. Hence, the petitioner is before this court.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued
that while passing the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority
has not followed the procedures enumerated in the circulate issued
by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the prosecution without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
examining any card holders and without having any material,
forwarded 6(A) Report and without conducting any enquiry,
confiscated the rice and imposed fine and the Appellate Authority
also without taking note of the above facts, has confirmed the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority and hence, the impugned
order passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side
submitted that the Adjudicating Authority, after conducting detailed
enquiry and careful consideration of the documents, passed an
order to handover the seized rice to the Government and imposed a
fine of Rs.1,20,000/- for the vehicle involved in the alleged offence
and the First Appellate Court has also rightly confirmed the
findings of the Adjudicating Authority and hence, prays for
dismissal of the Civil Revision.
6.It is seen from the records that the respondent police
registered the case against the petitioner and 11 others in Crime
No.60 of 2015 for the alleged offence under clause 6(2)(3)(4) of
TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 on the ground that on 6.03.2015, the Lorry TN-23-T-9099
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
was found in possession of 62 bags of rice. After registering the
said case the respondent police sent a report to the District
Collector, Tirunelveli District, to initiate confiscation proceedings
contemplated under section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act.
The Adjudicating Authority on receipt of the report, issued notice to
the petitioner and others contemplated under section 6(B) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, calling upon them to appear for
an enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the Adjudicating
Authority pursuant to the notice. Thereafter, the Adjudicating
Authority, by his order, dated 01.10.2015, confiscated the rice bags
and imposed a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- against the vehicle. As against
the confiscation, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court,
and on 11.09.2017, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the
Adjudicating Authority.
7.It is settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
various decisions, that the accused should be intimated about the
consequences of plea of guilty and otherwise, the Court should not
pass any orders. Coming to the instant case on hand, it is seen that
the Adjudicating Authority without following the procedures in the
manner known to law, has the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.Further, in this case, the prosecution without examining
any card holders and without having any material, forwarded 6(A)
report to the Adjudicating Authority stating that the seized rice is
PDS rice.
9.Keeping in view of the above facts, this court is of the
considered view that the Adjudicating Authority without
considering the above aspects and without giving reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order,
which also confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the orders of
both the authorities are liable to be set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for passing orders
afresh.
10.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The
impugned orders passed by both the authorities are set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority namely the
District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, for fresh
consideration. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to dispose of
the case purely on merits and in accordance with law, after giving
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/
litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
To,
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.975 of 2019
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
