CRUZ MICHEL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, Udagamandalam, in C.A. No. 8 of 2009, confirming the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District, in his order dated 30.01.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, who is an accused, is running a grocery/provision shop under the name and style 'Ulagamadha Store', at Door No. 6/113-B-6, Kolappalli Village, Pandalur Taluk. The first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Udagamandalam Nilgiris District, initiated action against the petitioner under the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Trade) Order 2000 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner was found to be in possession of 46 Domestic Gas Cylinders and one non-domestic gas cylinder in his premises. The gas cylinders were seized in Crime No. 853/2008, for offences under Sections 3(4), 4(1)(b), 4(2), 6, 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 9(d) and 9(E) of LPG (RSD) Order 2000, read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955. Thereafter, the seized gas cylinders were deposited with Thungapriya Gas Service, Naduvattam and a report was made to confiscate the cylinders to the Government. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.12.2008 under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation by stating that he is running a grocery shop and the 46 cylinders, belonged to his customers, had been seized by the first respondent; the customers are residing in and around Kolappally and they are Estate labourers; their houses are located in remote places in hilly areas; there is no motorable road to their residences: no one is staying in the house, as both husband and wife are working in different estates; their children are school going children and these consumers leave the empty gas cylinders with the petitioner, so that the petitioner would collect the full gas cylinders from the gas agency and his services are rendered at free of cost. The first respondent disbelieved the stand taken by the petitioner by observing that the explanation offered is not acceptable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Firstly, it is to be noted that the explanation offered by the petitioner was rejected by a single line order. The first respondent has not assigned any reason as to how the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. No witnesses were examined; notices were not issued to the consumers, in whose names the gas connections stand and the gas agency, with whom the consumers are registered, was not put on notice. Therefore, these defects are inherent. The first respondent failed to take into consideration that if the gas cylinders are to be confiscated to the Government, then the ultimate sufferer would be the consumers, in whose names the connections have been given. Therefore, no proceedings for confiscation could have been initiated, without notice to the consumers. This inherent defect was not considered by the Court of Sessions, which merely confirmed the order of the first respondent stating that the case as stated by the petitioner is unbelievable. Though the Court of Sessions referred to the stand taken by the petitioner, it rejected the same by stating that such a plea cannot be accepted, since it is in violation of the Control Order.