Suryamurthy, J. - (1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot Division at Cuddalore, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1976 on the file of his Court and confirming the order of confiscation of the lorry, M.D.A. 4429, passed by the Collector of South Arcot at Cuddalore.
(2.) FROM about 2nd July 1975, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam assisted by the Inspector, Food Cell, was going round on raid in the border area of South Arcot district checking the movement of lorries which were transporting paddy through the check -post, when the lorry M.D.A. 4429 was checked at about 4 P.M. on 4th July 1975 near the Tholudur Check -Post and found to carry 120 bags of paddy. The driver of the lorry produced some documents for the transport of paddy. The delivery note showed that the paddy was transported from Nagari in Andhra Pradesh and was intended to be taken to N.S.S.S.C. Sankaralinga Nadar and Sons, Arappukottai. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies had issued a no objection certificate in his reference No. B4 -31020/CS/75, dated 7th June 1975 to import 500 tonnes of paddy and 500 tonnes of rice from Andhra Pradesh to Aruppukottai. The Revenue Divisional Officer claims to have made a thorough verification and enquiry, which revealed that the paddy was not loaded in Andhra Pradesh. In his opinion, the paddy loaded in the lorry contained a high percentage of moisture. The driver of the lorry, Thiru Ameer Sulthan, son of Ibrahimsa Rowther, is alleged to have stated before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the 120 bags of paddy were lifted from Pidagam, a village near Villupuram and that the paddy was not loaded at Madras as per the entries found in the G.V.R. Because of the high percentage of moisture in the paddy, the Revenue Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the paddy was not imported from Andhra Pradesh as per the no objection certificate and other records. It was clear to him that the paddy was loaded in South Arcot district and sought to be transported to another district without a valid permit. He has expressed his opinion that 'the transaction is a bogus one', whatever may be the meaning of the word 'bogus' used by him in this connection. He came to the conclusion that this is a clear case of illicit transport of paddy and there has been a contravention of clause 4(19) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1970, read with Ss.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) which is an offence punishable under S.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. He, therefore, seized the entire quantity of paddy and the lorry under mahazar. The paddy seized was handed over to the South Arcot District Co -operative Supply and Marketing Society Branch at Vridhachalam on proper acknowledgment and after weighment. The lorry was impounded in the Taluk Office compound. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed the Collector in his reference A -1/13565/75, dated 7th July 1975 to order confiscation of the lorry to the Government. Proceedings were initiated under S.6 -B of the Act by the issue of a notice, dated 21st July 1975 to the petitioner about the proposed confiscation of the lorry to the Government and directing the petitioner, who is the owner of the lorry as well as the driver of the lorry, to appear and make their written representations, if any. They were also directed to appear before the Collector on 28th July 1975 at 10 A.M. at the Collector's office, Cuddalore, for being heard in person by the Collector. These proceedings were initiated, not by the Collector, but by some other revenue official purporting to act on behalf of the Collector. Representations in writing as well as by counsel engaged by the petitioner were made to the Collector. In the meantime, the lorry was released on bond. It was contended before the Collector that the transport was made under a no objection certificate issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras and that the no objection certificate had the seals of all the Check -posts and Border Check -post. The Collector observed that among the defences put forward was the defence that "the petitioner engaged brokers in Andhra Pradesh and purchased paddy, and therefore, the names in the delivery note, etc., may not be correct." The petitioner, in the instant case, is not the owner of the paddy but the owner of the lorry and, therefore, no representation could have been made either by the petitioner or his counsel before the Collector that the paddy was purchased by the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh. This statement has been made by the Collector obviously because he had drafted a common order in the case of the owners of lorries and owners of paddy in this case and similar cases, leaving gaps for filling up the dates, the number of the lorry and the number of paddy bags, etc., and has mechanically signed the orders in all the cases, after filling up the gaps. Neither the Collector nor the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal from the orders of the Collector in this case and similar cases would appear to have applied their minds to the facts of each particular case and passed the orders which can be justified on the the facts of each case. The learned Sessions Judge also has drafted a common order and had the order copied by cyclostyle, leaving gaps in appropriate places and has filled up the gaps in each case. Summary procedure does not mean callous procedure. Summary procedure does not justify mechanical orders being passed.
(3.) THE Collector has further observed that "the testimony of the lorry driver Thiru Ameer Sultan before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, on 4th July 1975 does not leave any doubt as to the fact that the said paddy consignment was procured in Villupuram taluk". This observation by the Collector is misleading. Thiru Ameer Sultan was not examined on oath by the Revenue Divisional Officer. A statement is alleged to have been obtained from him by the Revenue Divisional Officer. This is referred to by the Collector as the testimony of the lorry driver. I must straightway say that the Collector was not entitled to rely on a statement made by the driver to the Revenue Divisional Officer even in a summary enquiry. If the statement had been made before the Collector and reduced into writing by the Collector, the Collector could have observed the demeanour of the driver and could have come to a conclusion as to whether or not he was speaking the truth and whether his statement could be relied on. Similarly, the Collector, as the authority holding the enquiry, could have satisfied himself that the statement was not made by the driver under any duress, undue influence, threat or misrepresentation. Only after satisfying himself that the statement was made voluntarily, the Collector could have relied on the statement. He was not, therefore, entitled to rely on statement alleged to have been recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer.;