Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Anand Rathi Commoditi Limited ... on 24 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:23790]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 249/2023
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Food And
Civil Supplies Dept. Govt. Of Raj., Jaipur.
2. The Dist. Supply Officer, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
M/s Anand Rathi Commoditi Limited, M/s Anand Rathi
Commodities Limited Through Its Director Shir Roop Bhootra
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/05/2024
The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition
being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 03.12.2018 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Appeal No. 93/2016 whereby,
the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order
dated 10.05.2016 passed by the District Collector, Bikaner in Case
No.31/2015 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.
Brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2015, an inspection
was conducted by the enforcement team at the premises of LTC
Commercial Co Pvt Ltd and upon inspection, it was alleged that
1878.36 quintal of gram was stocked at the premises. It was
alleged that the respondent firm failed to present any stock
registers, bill books etc. Accordingly, the stock of grams was
seized being in violation of provisions of Rajasthan Trade Articles
(Licensing and Control) Order, 1980.
[2024:RJ-JD:23790] (2 of 5) [CRLR-249/2023]
In pursuance of seizure proceedings, an application under
Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was filed before
the District Collector, Bikaner praying for confiscation of the seized
grams.
The District collector vide order dated 10.05.2016 allowed
the application filed by the State and directed to confiscate
1878.36 quintal of seized grams and deposit the value of seized
grams in the Government treasury.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.05.2016, the
respondent firm preferred a criminal appeal being Appeal No.
93/2016 before the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The learned
Sessions Judge, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent firm
and set aside the order dated 10.05.2016 and it was held that the
proceedings of seizure were carried out on 01.11.2015 whereas,
the amendment in Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and
Control) Order, 1980 came to be amended vide notification
published in the official gazette on 20.10.2015 wherein, the
expression "Licensing of Dealers" was substituted with "Licensing
of dealers and Producers" and after existing last proviso new
proviso was added that the dealer and producer of pulses shall
obtain a license within fifteen days of commencement of this
order. Thus, the seizure proceedings were premature as the firm
was entitled to seek the license for the gram to be stored at its
ware house till 15 days from the date of order dated 20.10.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner State argued that the
criminal appeal preferred by the respondent firm was
misconceived as a remedy of filing revision petition against order
passed by the District Collector was available with the respondent
[2024:RJ-JD:23790] (3 of 5) [CRLR-249/2023]
firm. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an
error in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent firm. It is
further argued that order passed by the District collector is civil in
nature and criminal appeal was not at all maintainable. It is
argued that the respondent firm had violated the conditions of the
license, therefore, the proceedings undertaken by the department
so also the confiscation of seized gram is absolutely legal and
justified. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 may be
quashed and set aside.
Per contra counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner has concealed the fact that it had already preferred a
writ petition before this Court against the impugned order being
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2089/2019 and same was dismissed in
default. It is argued that after dismissal of the said appeal way
back in the year 2019, the revision petition challenging the same
order has been filed in the year 2023 without any explanation of
delay on frivolous grounds. It is further argued that as per
notification dated 24.01.1998 published in the official gazette, the
State Government has appointed District and Sessions Judge of
every District to be an appellate authority as prescribed under
Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and any person
aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector under
Section 6A of the Act can prefer an appeal under Section 6C of the
Act, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the
appeal filed by the respondent firm and thus, no interference is
called for in the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 and the
revision petition may be dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JD:23790] (4 of 5) [CRLR-249/2023]
I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
the material on record.
From the documents on record so also finding arrived by the
learned Sessions Judge, it is evident that the learned Sessions
Judge, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent firm on the
ground that proceedings of seizure were carried out on
01.11.2015 whereas, the amendment in Rajasthan Trade Articles
(Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 came to be amended vide
notification published in the official gazette on 20.10.2015
wherein, the expression "Licensing of Dealers" was substituted
with "Licensing of dealers and Producers" and after existing last
proviso new proviso was added that the dealer and producer of
pulses shall obtain a license within fifteen days of commencement
of this order. Therefore, the respondent firm was entitled to seek
the license for the gram to be stored at its ware house till 15 days
from the date of order dated 20.10.2015. Thus, the finding arrived
at by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the seizure
proceedings being premature is absolutely justified. So far as the
remedy of filing a revision petition being available against the
order passed by the District Collector is concerned, I concur with
the contention of counsel for the respondent firm that the State
Government has appointed District and Sessions Judge of every
District to be an appellate authority as prescribed under Section
6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and any person
aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector under
Section 6A of the Act can prefer an appeal under Section 6C of the
Act. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
[2024:RJ-JD:23790] (5 of 5) [CRLR-249/2023]
dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner.
Moreover, the petitioner State has already filed a writ petition
challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 before this Court and said
writ petition has also been dismissed way back in the year 2019.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed. The respondent firm will be at liberty to approach the
court below seeking compliance of the order dated 03.12.2018.
Stay petition is also disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
105-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
