DESHMUKH, J. - (1.) THESE twelve revision applications involve facts which are identical and points of law which are common. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. There is a big godown in Broach Galli, Bombay. The open space inside the godown has been notionally divided into Galas and Gallis by drawing lines. The respondents have various galas as their places of business. To give the facts of Revision Application No. 85 of 1975, which are representative in character, it would appear that Gala No. 5 of 'L' Galli was notified by the respondent -accused as, his place of business as detailed in condition 2(a) of the licence issued to him as an authorised dealer under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. This is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Every dealer under these provisions has to notify the place of business and get it entered upon his licence. If he wants to change the place of business or to add any more places of business, he has to notify within forty -eight hours the change of place and get it endorsed upon his licence. Not to do so, but to use any other place for business, which is not so notified, is an offence. It means that the breach of Rule is made punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Essential Commodities Act will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the Maharashtra Foodgrain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963, will be referred to as the 'Order'. Raids were conducted on August 12, 1972, at the said godown in Broach Street. The respondent was found to have stored 92 bags, of wheat in Galas, Nos. 6 and 7 in 'E' Galli instead of Gala No. 5 of 'L' Galli which was his notified place of business. The wheat was seized. It was produced before the Collector under Section 6A of the Act and after dealing with it under Section 6B the Collector passed his order of confiscation on September 22, 1972. Against that order all the twelve respondents filed their appeals before the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court under the provisions of Section 6C of the Act. The Principal Judge heard and disposed of five appeals by his order dated April 19, 1974. As he found that the principles of natural justice were not observed as required by Section 6B of the Act, he set aside the order of confiscation and remanded those matters for reconsideration according to law. The remaining seven appeals are still pending on his file.
(3.) THE twelve respondents were simultaneously prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Those prosecutions resulted in conviction. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated October 31, 1974, awarded a very light sentence of fine of Rs. 100 on the ground that the offences were purely technical and there was no deliberate intention to conceal the commodity or to make excessive profit. He also formed an opinion that it was not necessary to forfeit or confiscate the goods. Purporting to act, therefore, under the provisions of the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 7 of the Act as it stood before the amendment, by Act XXX of 1974, he directed the return of the seized goods to the respective respondents.;