K. D. SHARMA C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision under section 397/ 401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated August 9, 1982, by which the order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, confiscating 587 Kattas of Gur, 10 Kottas of Deshi Khand,and 59 Kattas of Sugar under section 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was confirmed.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision application may be briefly stated as follows : - On December, 3, 1979, the Enforcement Officer, namely, Shri Har Lal Bishnoi inspected the petitioner's firm namely, M/s. Ram Kumar Rajendra Prasad, Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar and found the following irregularities upon inspection: (1) that the petitioner firm contravened the provisions contained in clause 5 (1) of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1977 by selling Gur, Sugar and Deshi Khand on a prcic higher than that specified in respect of these articles in the list of prices displayed on the Board at a conspicuous place near the entrance of its business premises; (2) that the weight of Gur, and Khandasari was not mentioned in the stock register; and (3) that the balance of sugar stock shown in the stock register at the beginning on December 1, 1979, remained the same on December 3, 1979, although on December, 1, 1979, 55 bags of sugar were purchased and out of them 20 bags of sugar were sold in this manner, the petitioner contravened condition No. 1 of the licence granted under the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1967. The Enforcement Officer having found the aforesaid contraventions, seized 587 Kattas of Gur, 10 Kattas of Deshi Khand and 59 Kattas of Sugar from the shop of the petitioner firm and reported the seizure without unreasonable delay to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, and prayed for confiscation thereof. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, was satisfied that there had been contravention of the Orders. So before confiscation of these commodities he issued a notice in writing informing the petitioner firm of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the commodities and gave the petitioner firm an opportunity of making a representation in writing within the specified time against the grounds of confiscation and a further opportunity of being heard in the matter. The petitioner appeared through Advocate Shri Roshan Lal Gupta before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, and filed a representation in writing on March 4, 1980, wherein it was alleged that the report of the Enforcement Officer was not based on true facts and was against the provisions of law. It was further alleged in the representation that the State Government or the Collector or any competent officer authorised by the State Government did not issue any direction in writing to the petitioner firm that the essential commodities seized from its possession shall be sold by the firm in such quantity or number, subject to such condition, after such interval and in such manner as may be specified in such direction. In the absence of any direction the petitioner firm contended that it was not bound to sell the essential commodities at a particular price. Apart from this it was further alleged that the market prices of Gur, Sugar and Deshi Khand fluctuated time and again in a day and so these commodities were to be sold at the price prevalent in the market on that date. According to the submission of the petitioner firm, the commodities were sold to dealers who very well knew about the market rates there of and had no grievance in this behalf. In short, the reply of the petitioner firm was while selling the aforesaid commodities to dealers it had no measurers or guilty intention. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner firm, considered there presentation in writing made by the petitioner firm and came to the conclusion that the commodities seized by the Enforcement Officer were liable to be confiscated on the ground that there had been contravention of clause 5 (1) of the Order of 1977 and condition No. 1 of the licence issued under the Order of 1967. Accordingly, he passed an order confiscating the commodities seized by the Enforcement Officer. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner firm preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who transferred it to the Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and going through the record dismissed the appeal the confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. As against this order of the Additional S. Judge, the petitioner firm has come up in revision to this Court and, in the alternative, has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order of the confiscation of the commodities passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat for the State at some length. The first contention put forward by Mr. B. Advani on behalf of the petitioner firm is that the Collector and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, wrongly placed reliance on the statement and report of the Enforcement Officer and committed an error of law in confiscating the commodities seized from the possession of the petitioner firm. It was further urged by Mr. B. Advani that the prices of Gur, Sugar and Deshi Khand were not fixed by the Government of Rajasthan and no notification was issued in this behalf and, as such, there was no restriction on the sale of these commodities at any price. According to his submission, the price of these commodities fluctuated many a time in the day and they were sold as per rate prevalent in the market at the time of sale. Hence, according to him, the price of Gur shown as 237/-, per quintal in the list of prices on the opening day and, thereafter, the Gur was sold at a high price without mentioning higher price in the list is not sufficient to show that the petitioner had a guilt intention or measure to indulge in black-marketing or to secure illegal monetary advantage to itself by contravening the provisions of the Order of 1977. In support of his above contention, Mr. B. Advani relied upon an authority of the Andhra Pradhesh High Court - Dharani Trading Co. vs. State of A. P. (l)
(3.) THE Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner failed to mention the higher price of Gur at which it was sold to the purchasers, in the list of the essential commodities in a conspicuous place of his shop as required under clause 3 of the Order of 1977 and sold Gur at a price higher than that specified in the list of prices and further violated the provisions of clause 5 (1) by selling Gur at a price higher than that specified in the list of prices. THE Public Prosecutor further urged that the nature of the violation was not of a technical or trivial nature, because the petitioner firm sold the commodity at a price higher than that specified in the list of prices with the object of black-marketing. I have carefully considered the rival contentions mentioned above and perused the authority cited by Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, I may observe that the price of Gur was shown at Rs. 235/ -. per quintal by the petitioner in the list of prices displayed at his shop on December, 3 1979 but on that date Gur was sold to two persons at a price, i. e. Rs. 240/-, per quintal per bill Nos. 3433 and 3435 which price was higher than that specified in the list of prices in respect of the said commodity. Again vide bill Nos. 3438 and 3449 Gur was sold at a price, i. e. Rs. 238/-, per quintal which price also was higher than that specified in respect of such articles in the list of prices. Likewise, bill No. 3441 revealed that the said commodity was sold on that date at a price of Rs. 245/-, per quintal and bill Nos. 3442 and 3443 further disclosed that the same commodity was sold at a price of Rs. 235/-, per quintal. Similarly bills of Deshi Khand Nos. 3436 and 3437 clearly showed that Deshi Khand was sold at a price i. e. Rs. 375/-, per quintal which was higher than that specified in respect of this commodity in the list of prices. In respect of sugar also it is obvious from bill No 3437 that this commodity was sold at the price of Rs. 245/-, and 248,per quintal which price was higher than that specified,in the list of prices. It will not be out of place to mention that in the list of prices the price of sugar was shown at Rs. 242/-, per quintal and the price of Deshi Khand was mentioned at Rs. 360/-, per quintal as on December, 3, 1979 when the shop was inspected and checked by the Enforcement Officer. Thus, it is evident that the higher price at when Gur, Sugar and Deshi Khand were sold to different persons on that date were not noted in the list of prices fixed on the notice board at the time of inspection and checking by the Enforcement Officer on December 3, 1979, at about 2 30 p. m. Clause 5 (1) of the Order of 1977 clearly lays down that "no dealer shall sell to any person any article mentioned in the Schedule at a price higher than that specified in respect of such article in the list of prices. It will not be out of place to mention that Sugar, Gur and Khandsari are the articles mentioned in the Schedule appended the Order of 1977. It is no doubt true that Sugar, Gur and Deshi Khand. which the petitioner was selling, at his shop, were not levy or controlled commodities and were free market articles, but if the petitioner firm sold away to persons these commodities at a price higher than those specified in respect of such articles in the list of prices, it was obligatory upon it under clause 5 (1) of the Order to mention such higher prices in respect of those commodities in the list of prices exhibited in a conspicuous place of its shop, especially when the shop was inspected and checked by the Enforcement Officer at about 2. 30 p. m. on that date. As the petitioner failed to note the higher prices of these commodities in the list of prices the Collector and the Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that there was a, contravention of clause 5 (1) of the Order of 1977 for which the petitioner could not afford any reasonable explanation. The ruling cited by Mr. B. Advani on this point is distinguishable on the facts of this case and is, therefore, inapplicable, because in the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to exhibit the price list of the essential commodities in a conspicuous place as required under clause 3 (1) and 3 (2) (a) to (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order, 1966. In the instant case before me the allegation against the petitioner was that he sold to different persons Gur, Sugar and Deshi Khand at a price higher than those specified in respect of articles in the list of price displayed conspicuous at its shop. Another allegation against the petitioner was that on December 1, 1979, the petitioner purchased 55 bags of sugar and out of them sold away 20 bags but in respect of these transactions the stock of sugar shown in the stock register remained the same, on December 2 and 3, 1979 as it was on the opening day on December 1, 1979. The petitioner ought to have made necessary entries in the stock register of sugar relating to purchase of 55 bags of sugar on December, 1, 1979 and the sale of 20 bags out of them. The petitioner firm could not afford any reasonable explanation for its failure to correctly maintain the stock register of sugar even in the afternoon of December 3, 1979. The Collector and the Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the petitioner firm was guilty of contravention of condition No. 1 of its licence issued to it under the Order of 1967, because on December 3, 1979, at about 2. 30 p. m. when the shop was inspected and checked by the Enforcement Officer, the stock of sugar shown in the stock register was the same as was shown on the opening day of December 1, 1979 and there were no entries in it relating to purchase of 55 bags of sugar and sale of 20 bags out of them on December 1, 1979. ;