Mahavir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by a dealer against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow dismissing his appeal against the order of the A. D. M. [Civil Supplies] Lucknow confiscating 520 tins of Vanaspati weighing 16 kgs. each.
(2.) THE relevant facts in this connection are that the applicant had a licence of retail dealer of Vanaspati Ghee in the Cheap Market of Amina- bad, Lucknow. it is said that on 4-5- 74 he sold 20 tins to one Nanak Chand Sindhi resident of mohalla Mowaiya though he purported to have done so in the name of 20 persons. That Nanak Chand Sindhi was intercepted by the police while he was carrying 20 tins on a THEla in mohalla New Ganeshganj. THE tins did not bear any price noted on it. It was also found that two cash memos were issued in the name of one person Ram Narain and in this way two tins were said to have been sold in favour of one person. It was also pointed out that there was thus a contravention of the U. P. Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitran [Khadya] Adesh, 1976 issued under Essential Commodities Act. It was also found that after further investigation 500 tins, each weighing 16.5 kgs. were recovered from different godowns which were other than those mentioned in the licence of the applicant. A number of cash memos were also found prepared, which filled all the details except the names of the purchasers. Some contravention was also found inasmuch as the retail licence was not exhibited on the shop. A case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the applicant but later on a final report was submitted against him.
(3.) HOWEVER, the authorities moved the Collector to take action against the applicant under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. A notice was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why in view of the contravention of U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969 and of the U. P. Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitran [Khadya] Adesh, 1976, 520 tins of vegetable Ghee weighing 16.5 kgs. each be not confiscated. The applicant contested the notice. He denied that he had sold 20 tins of vegetable ghee to Nanak Chand Sindhi. He also denied that he had issued two cash memos to one and the same person, namely Ram Narain. He also denied that he had contravened the provisions of the U. P. Fair Price Display and Contents of Supply and Distribution Order, 1971. He alleged that he used to write down the price on each tin by chalk, and that the cash memos were prepared by him in advance to save time as there was rush of persons for purchase of vanaspati ghee in view of shortage. The licence was not exhibited at the shop because the inspection took place at 9.00 P.M. after the same had been closed.;