Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 29.5.2002 eased by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and upheld the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Collector, Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 4/2001 by which the learned Collector allowed the application under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) by which seized SPL Wheat of 78 Quintals were confiscated and further DSO, Chittorgarh was ordered to dispose of that wheat and the amount recovered to from the said sale be deposited in the Government treasury.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances:- (i) That on 20.1.2001, the Enforcement Inspector, Chittorgarh inspected the shop of the petitioner and he found contravention of Rajasthan Food Grain and other Essential Commodities (Distribution and Regulation) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1976) as 78 Quintal BPL wheat was not found in godown and therefore, he seized that wheat and filed an application before the Collector, Chittorgarh under Section 6A of the Act of 1955. On that complaint a criminal case No. 4/2001 was registered and notice was given to the petitioner. (ii) It may be stated here that in para 6 of the application, it was mentioned by the Enforcement Inspector that the petitioner had submitted an application on 23 1.2001 before the Dist. Supply Officer, Chittorgarh that he had not kept wheat allotted to him in his godown, but it was kept somewhere at other place because in the godown of the accused petitioner work of washing and cleaning was going on that date i.e. 20.1.2004. (iii) That the accused petitioner submitted reply to the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 6A of the Act of 1955. (iv) That the learned Collector through order dated 15.5.2001 did not accept the case of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had committed breach of condition No. 1 of the order issued under the order of 1976 and thus he directed that the seized wheat be confiscated and passed the order as aforesaid. (v) Aggrieved from the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and the learned Sessions Judge through impugned judgment dated 29.5.2002 dismissed the same. (vi) Aggrieved from the judgment dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Collector, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner.
(3.) In this revision petition, the main case of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that since on 23.1.2001, the petitioner had submitted an application before the DSO stating the circumstance in which the wheat was kept at other place other than godown and therefore, there was no malafide intention on his part and hence the impugned order of confiscation was perse illegal and without jurisdiction.;