1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER M/s Durga Traders Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.333/2007. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 16th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. R.P. Garg for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2nd March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.59/2006 by which the appeal under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') has been dismissed and order dated 27th June, 2001 passed by the learned District Collector, Bharatpur under Section 6A of the Act has been maintained. Briefly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition, are that an application under Section 6A of the Act was filed before the Collector, Bharatpur with the averments that on 27.2.1999 at the time of inspection of plot No.G-72, RIICO Industrial Area, Bayana, it was found that in the go-down 150 bags of sugar and 65 bags of peas were stored in violation of the 2 Rajasthan Trade Article Licence and Control Order, 1980 (in short, 'Control Order'). It was also averred in the complaint that at that time, Lahari Ram, the owner of the go-down was present and he admitted to have given the go-down on rent to Mahesh Chand Satish Kumar. Devki Nandan munim and Sukhchand were also there. When they were asked about the storing of the sugar and peas without there being any information to the licensing authority or else-where, they could not reply. It was also averred that Mahesh Chand and Satish Chand of Bayana had no license to purchase and sell the sugar and in their monthly return no entry was made with regard to the above sugar and peas. The above storage was in violation of Conditions no.1, 2 and 9 of the Control Order. The seizure was made and notices were sent under the provisions of the Act to which reply was filed by Mahesh Chand and firm Durga Traders. In the reply it was, inter-alia, stated that the information in relation to taking the go-down on rent and for storing the sugar in the go-down was sent to the licensing authority. It was also stated that the storage of sugar in the go- down was for the reason that in their shop there was no sufficient space to store the same. Some documents were also submitted to show that the same were purchased by firm Durga Traders. The learned Collector, Bharatpur found that the storage of the sugar and peas in the go-down was found at the time of inspection in violation of the Control Order. The explanation was not acceptable for the reason that the same appeard from perusal that it was 3 prepared subsequently in view of the purchase of the peas bills of different dates and the go-down was taken on rent two months before the inspection. The learned Collector, Bharatpur in the above circumstances, passed an order confiscating the sugar and peas bags vide order dated 27.6.2001. The appeal preferred against the order dated 27.6.2001 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur on 2.3.2007. Hence, the present revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proper entries were made in the stock register and they were duly verified by the Vyapar Mandal and it cannot be said that there was any violation of the Order,1980. It is also contended that the go-down was taken on rent and in relation to taking the go- down on rent, proper documents were submitted to the licensing authority but they were not taken into consideration. It is also contended that notice under section 6A was essential but no such notice was received. It is contended that the seizure was made under the assumption that the bags of sugar found in the go-down were of Mahesh Chand, therefore, it can be presumed that no notice was sent to M/s Durga Traders. It is contended that proper procedure in this case has not been followed. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, Sub Divisional Officer, Bayana inspected plot No.G-72, RIICO Industrial Area, Bayana on 27.2.1999 and it was found that in the go-down sugar bags and 4 peas bags were lying and storage was done in violation of the conditions of the Control Order. It is also contended that two courts below have concurrently found that the seizure was made in accordance with law and there being no intimation to the licensing authority in relation to sugar having been stored in the go-down. It is further submitted that once it is found that there was storage of sugar bags and peas bags in the go-down without there being any information to the licensing authority in violation of the conditions of Control Order, then the seizure made by the enforcement staff cannot be said to be illegal and the order passed thereafter by the learned Collector after hearing both the sides and considering the entire matter is not liable to be set aside. I have considered the above submissions made before me and perused the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned appellate court. It is to be seen that the main grievance of the petitioner is that no notice under section 6B of the Act was sent, therefore, the entire proceedings drawn is liable to be set aside is not tenable for the simple reason that a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Collector reveals that the reply has been filed by the appellant to the notice under section 6B of the Act. Had there been no notice received by the appellant then how could they file the reply to the notice issued to them. A detailed reply has been filed by the appellant M/s Durga Traders as well as Mahesh Chand. Another argument of the learned counsel that proper 5 procedure has not been followed as proper intimation was given to the licensing authority and there has been no violation of the Control Order is concerned is also not tenable for the simple reason that no such document or explanation was furnished at the time when inspection was made. Munim of M/s Durga Traders was present at the spot but he did not forwarded any explanation at that time. The courts below have found that subsequently to justify the storage, the documents were prepared and this finding is based on proper reasonings. The findings of the learned two courts below cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in view of the fact that at the time of inspection, nothing was disclosed about taking the go-down on rent. It was also found that before two months of seizure, the go-down was taken on rent but the bills in relation to purchase of peas were of April, 1998 to December, 1998. If that is so, then how it was possible to have stored the peas bags in the go-down when same were purchased prior to taking the go-down on rent. The findings of facts concurrently arrived at by the courts below are not required to be disturbed by this court under its revisional jurisdiction unless it is found that the same were perverse in nature and against record. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Collector as well as learned appellate court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6 In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) bblm