CR.RA/511/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 511 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NAROTTAMBHAI PRANBHAI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MB PARIKH for Applicant(s) : 1, Mr I M Pandya, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 11/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Mr I M Pandya, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. The Records and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.10 of CR.RA/511/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1999 is received by the court. 1. By way of filing this Revision Application, the present petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.6.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Amreli in Criminal Appeal (Essential Commodities Act) No.10/1999 rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Collector, Amreli dated 12.7.1999 in Application under section 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act being No.4/99. 2. It is the case of the present respondent No.2 that on 18.2.1999, at the time of checking by the Commodity Inspector at Village Chavand, Taluka: Lathi, District Amreli, the truck bearing registration No.GJ-4U-9268 was intercepted and checked, and the Inspector has found several discrepancies and therefore, he had seized ground nut oil of 150 tins worth Rs. 94,860/- and also seized the truck. Thereafter on 6.3.1999 respondent No.2 had issued show cause notice calling upon the present petitioner for non-compliance of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, and as to why the seized goods shall not be confiscated. The petitioner filed his reply against the show cause notice and clarified all the discrepancies. Considering the reply and the oral arguments of the petitioner, the Collector, Amreli has partly allowed the application No.4/99 and ordered to confiscate the goods i.e. ground nut oil of 337.500 grams worth Rs.14,229/- and imposed penalty of Rs.500/- towards the seizure of the vehicle. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, the petitioner herein has filed appeal under section 6[C] of the Essential Commodities Act before the learned Special Judge, Amreli. The learned Special Judge, Amreli confirmed the order CR.RA/511/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT passed by the Collector, Amreli dated 12.7.1999 and dismissed the application holding that a reasoned order has been passed by the Collector and so the same is not required to be interefered with. Hence the present revision is preferred by the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has taken this court through both the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Learned Special Judge and also took this court to certain written submissions made by the petitioner before the Collector. 5. This Court has gone through para 4 of the order passed by the Collector wherein it is held that the written submissions given by the petitioner is partly accepted. No reasons are assigned by the Collector for coming to this conclusion. It is also pertinent to note that no reasons are also assigned for not dealing with the other contentions raised in the written reply filed by the petitioner. Without giving any kind of reasons, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty for breach of section 6(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. The Appellate Court also has not given any reasons for dismissing the appeal. It is held by the Appellate Court that the Collector has given detailed reasons for passing the order. 6. As discussed above, the Collector has not given any reasons for passing the order and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 21.6.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.10/1999 as well as the order passed by the Collector dated 12.7.1999 is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, this Revision Application is partly allowed. The CR.RA/511/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 21.6.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.10/1999 as well as the order passed by the Collector dated 12.7.1999 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for taking a fresh decision. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the matter afresh on its merits with detailed reasons, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within reasonable time. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp