- (1.) B. L. Yadav, J. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code), against the judgment and order dated 23-7-83 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, (for short the Act), (as amended by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1966), arising out of the order dated 22-5-81 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Varanasi.
(2.) IT appears that a licence was obtained by the petitioner for steam coal under Clause 4 of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977. A notice was given to the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act on the report of the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) to the effect that on this spot neither the stock board nor 'rate-board' was available, nor any other document was made available, and the applicant did not return after assurance that he would furnish the requisite papers. Consequently, this inference was possible that he did not prepare any relevant document, and hence the proceedings for confiscation as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Act be initiated and the coal of the petitioner may be confiscated. A reply to the show cause notice was furnished by the petitioner as required under Section 6-B of the Act, but the same was not found satisfactory. Consequently, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Varanasi, by order dated 22-5-81 directed the confiscation of 132 mt. of coal and auction of the same. The said quantity of coal appears to have been put to a auction sale. Against that order the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act, which failed, hence the present Revision under Sections 397401 of the Code was filed. Sri C. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant urged that in view of clause 4 of U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977, licence is granted to a person desirous of either importing coal or carrying on business as a coal agent. The petitioner was dealer in steam coal. Second proviso (B) of Clause 3 of the said Control order of 1977 provides that clauses 4 to 10 would not apply to steam coal and hard coke for industrial consumption. It was further urged that depriving from a privilege of licence or imposing a fine Or forfeiture or awarding some other punish ment under the Coal Control Order, 1977, make it substantially penal in nature. A penal statute must be strictly interpreted in favour of the subject, according to the cardinal rule of interpretation of statutes. Clause 4 deals with the licence and provides that no person shall import coal and carry on business as a coal agent or coal depot-holder, or run a brick kiln with coal except and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence. Clause 5 deals with the issuance of a licence. Clause 6 provides the period of licence and the fee chargeable. Clause 7 deals with the security, whereas clause 8 deals with directions regarding import, purchase, sale, storage and distribution. Clause 10 deals with the display of stock position. The last two clauses 9 and 10 and clauses 4 and 5 appear to be relevant for the present case, whereas clauses 14 and 16 deal with the power to call for information and effect of suspension or revocation of licence. But under clause 3 (B) of the Control Order, 1977, these clauses would not apply to steam coal or to hard coak for industrial consumption. It was next urged that in view of the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977, (for short the Distribution Order), only for a scheduled commodity the prices list etc. was re quired to be maintained. Only soft coke has been mentioned at Serial No. 12 and hence the Distribution Order, l977 applies to soft coke. The steam coal is conspicuous by its absence. This Distribution Order, 1977, consequently, would not apply to the case of petitioner. In other words, the petitioner was neither required to obtain licence nor to maintain price list etc. Sri N. S. Kulshresthra appearing for the State on the other hand, urged that impugned orders are correct and in respect of the steam coal the licence was essential and the same having been obtained, the petitioner was bound to comply with the terms of the said licence and to show the register etc. on the spot when they were required by the Inspector concerned, the impugned orders were perfectly correct.
(3.) BEFORE the points urged are discussed, it would not be inappropriate if some elementary rules of construction of penal statutes are referred. Depriving a citizen from his privilege of licence or imposing punishment for violation of conditions of licence or violation of provisions of the Coal Control Order, 1972, impose criminal penalties. The rules imposing criminal penalties should be narrowly construed in favour of the person proceeded against. In London and Country Commercial Properties Investments Ltd. v. Attorney General, (1953) 1 WLR 312, at page 319, it was held : The principle applied in construing a penal Act is that it in construing the relevant provisions, there appears any reasonable doubt or ambi guity, it will be resolved in favour of the person would be liable to the penalty. In Tuck and Sons v. Priester, (1887) 19 QBD 629 at page 638, it was observed : If there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case, we must adopt that construction, it there are two reasonable constructions, we must give the more lenient one. That is the settled rule for the construction of penal, sections.;