Murlidhar - (1.) THE revisionist is a dealer in electric light bulbs. In a raid, dated 9-7-1980 on his business premises the District Supply Officer claimed to have found contravention of certain provisions of U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as (the Control Order). In the memo the revisionist was described as a retailer-cum-wlholesale dealer. A stock of over 6000 bulbs of different kinds was found on his shop. THE irregularities mentioned are (1) Non-maintenance of the stock regiister (2) Non-display of stock list and (3) Omission to note particulars of the purchasers on cash memos and obtain their signatures. In a proceeding under Section 6-A Essential Supplies Act, the stock of bulbs was ordered to be confiscated. On appeal under Section 7 C of the Act. the Sessions Judge found that the revisionist being a retailer in the absence of any order by the State Government was not bound to maintain stock register under Clause 8 or display stock list under Clause 3 (5) of of the Order. But the appeal was dismissed on the finding that lie had failed to display the price list of the scheduled commodity in question (bulbs) held by him in stock for sale.
(2.) THE appellate court has clearly misdirected itself in observing that a price list was not displayed. THE seizure imemo a photostat copy of which has been filed on behalf of the revisionist itself mentions that the price list was duly displayed (MULYA SUCHI PRADARSHIT PAYA GAYA). But the appellate Judge seriously erred in assuming that the revisionist was a retail dealer and proceeding on that basis. THE seizure memo described him as a retail-cum-whole- sale dealer. If he was a whole-sale dealer he would be bound to maintain a stock register, display the stock position as well as to note names and particulars of purchasers on the cash memo which are: the three irregularities mentioned in the seizure memo. When all the irregularities pertained to a wholesale dealer alone, the real point for consideration and decision was whether the revisionist was a wholesale dealer. Only then could it be decided whether there had been any breach of the provisions of the Contra! Order. THE appellate decision is, therefore, highly unsatisfactory and the Base must be remanded for a fresh decision. It should also be added that in proceedings under Section 6-A while the first requirement is for the Collector to satisfy himself that there has been some contravention of the relevant Control Order with regard to the essential commodity that has been seized, confiscation of the goods should not follow as a matter of course in each case where the Collector finds that there has been contravention. The language of Section 6-A is that after being satisfied of the contravention the Collector "may order confiscation of (a) the commodities so seized-----." This language gives a discretion to the Collector in the matter of confiscation and in appropriate cases he; may refuse to confiscate or leave the property in the hands of the courts for disposal along with its order in the case. Even if he decides to confiscate, it is not always necessary to do so in respect of the whole seized commodity and depending on the circumstances confiscation of merely a part which would include confiscation of goods worth a fixed money equivalent would be not only justified but proper. Therefore, the question whether the seized goods should be confiscated and if so to what extent are matters that have to be considered by the Collector and the appellate authority before passing or confirming an order of confiscation. The nature of contravention and all other circumstances of the case would be pertinent for deciding the extent of confiscation. One factor may be the market situation of the commodity and whether it is or expected to be in short-supply and if the contravention creates a suspicion of an intention of clandestine disposal of the stock and its withdrawal from the usual market. In fact it would be desirable for the raiding authority to give its comments on these aspects from thes point of view of local market in the seizure memo or report itself. This would assist the authority in taking a decision in proceedings under Section 6-A and tailoring the confiscation order to the requirements of the case. In the present case there appears no indication of any short-supply of or widespread black marketing of bulbs in general or any brand seized and the breach is prima facie more or less a technical one. It would be wholly improper in such circumstances to confiscate the total stock of about 6000 bulbs. In my opinion in the circumstances of the case, the value of confiscated goods would not in any case exceed Rs. 3000/-. I would, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the order of the appellate count and direct that the seized bulbs be released in favour of the revisionist on payment of a cash security of Rs. 3000/-. The appellate court will then decide the appeal afresh and determine in the light of the observations in this order, what part if any of Rs. 3000/- in deposit is to be confiscated under Section 6. The amount of Rs. 3000/- should be taken to be only the outside limit and should not influence the court in any way in deciding the matter or extent of confiscation. ---- Revision allowed.;