Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of May, 2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 890 of 2000 whereby the High Court had set aside an order dated 26th of February, 2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, M. P. in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1999 who in his turn had set aside an order dated 20th of December, 1999 passed by the Collector, Sagar in so far as he proceeded to include M/s. Holani Auto Links Pvt. Ltd. (in short the "Appellant Company") within the definition of "Dealer" as contained in Clause 2(a) of the M. P. Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1977 (in short the "Order of 1977") and held them guilty for violating Clauses 3(1) to 3(3) and 6(1) of the Order of 1977.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows. The Appellant Company was appointed as a Distributor by Castrol India Ltd. (in short the "manufacturing company") by entering into an agreement dated 1st of June, 1998. On 27th of May, 1999, a team headed by Deputy Collector, Food Department, Sagar, M. P. came to the office premises of the appellant company for inspection and asked for the records and various registers and the lists. Before the Deputy Collector and the Members of the Food Department, Sagar, the representative of the appellant company had explained that it was only a Distributor and therefore was not required to maintain all those lists and other things. However, the Deputy Collector and his team seized around 33344.80 liters of lubricating oil stored in the premises of the appellant company. The value of the oil was worth Rs. 2,01,840/-. On the basis of such inspection, the Collector, Sagar on 2nd of June, 1999 issued a show cause notice to the appellant company and thereafter evidence from both the sides were adduced and the Collector by his order dated 20th of December, 1999 found that the appellant company had violated Clauses 3(1) to 3 (3) and 6(1) of the Order of, 1977 and, accordingly, he ordered confiscation of the commodities worth Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the commodities seized from the possession of the appellant company under Section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the alternative, it was directed that in case the appellant company wanted the release of the commodities worth Rs. 1,00,000/-, it may deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- instead and get the release of the entire stock of oil. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant company filed an appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Sessions Judge, Sagar. The learned Sessions Judge, Sagar by the order dated 24th of February, 2000 had set aside the order of the Collector and allowed the appeal of the appellant company holding that the appellant company was not covered by the definition of "Dealer" under the Order of 1977 and accordingly, it was neither liable to exhibit the price nor was it required to keep the accounts. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge, Sagar, the State of M. P. filed a Criminal Revision No. 890 of 2000 before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of May, 2001 had allowed the revision case thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and restoring the order of the Collector, Sagar. Against this decision of the High Court, a special leave petition has been filed in respect of which leave has already been granted.
(3.) From the factual matrix and in view of the arguments advanced before us, the following questions need to be decided in this appeal. (1) Whether the appellant company would fall within the definition of Dealer as contained in Clause 2(a) of the Order of 1977. (2) Whether the appellant company has violated Clauses 3(1) to 3(3) and 6(1) of the order of 1977. ;