1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2010 Nilesh S/o Inderchand Sethi, Prop : Nilesh Trading Co., Age : 38 years, Occ : Business, R/o Juna Mondha, Aurangabad ..APPLICANT - VERSUS - 1 District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad). ..RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2010 Vijay S/o Shamlalji Chabda, Prop :- Parshwanath Provisions, Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o Chelipura, Aurangabad. ..APPLICANT - VERSUS - 1 District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad). ..RESPONDENTS Mr. D.S. Bharuka, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondents/State. 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 11th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Both these applications can be disposed of by this common judgment and order because the facts are similar. Both the applicants are Wholesale dealers in food grains. Both of them had stocked rice in public Ware House situated at Station Road, Aurangabad. On 6th August, 2009, the Action Committee constituted by the Collector of Aurangabad found 160 quintal and 75 quintal of rice stored by the applicants in these two cases respectively. The stocks of rice of both the applicants were seized immediately. On 21st August, 2009, the Additional Collector, Aurangabad issued show-cause notice to the applicants as to why the seized rice should not be confiscated. The applicants submitted their reply. However, on 23rd October, 2009, the learned Additional Collector directed confiscation of the seized stocks of rice. On 6th November, 2009, applicants filed appeals before the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and challenged the order of confiscation. However, on 7th July, 2010, the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders of confiscation. These orders, thus, are challenged in these Criminal Revision Applications. 2. The point that arose for consideration is : (i) Whether the applicants are licensed Wholesale Dealers as defined under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Whole- Sale Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1998(for short the Order)? 3 (ii) Whether applicants had committed any breach of any provision of the Order? 3. It is a common ground that the provisions of the Order are applicable to the facts of the case and having regard to the provision of the Order, the impugned action and the orders were passed. If one peruses the provision of Order one would find that the provisions of this Order are no more applicable to the Wholesale Dealers of food grains including rice. In 2003, the Order was subjected to amendment and it is made inapplicable to the Wholesale Dealers of Food Grains, Edible Oil and Edible Oil Seeds. In view of the amendment caused in the Order, the provisions of the Order are now applicable only to dealers who are engaged in the business of purchase, sale and storage of Scheduled Commodities namely, Gur, Khandsari and Pulses. In addition to it, the provisions of Order would also apply to the Dal Mill, Dal Millers, Roller Floor Mill and Oil Mill. 4 A Wholesale Dealer of the Food Grains thus is not required to obtain a licence under the provisions of this Order. With the result, there is no limit on his keeping the stock of Food Grains. Clause 10 of the Order prescribes the maximum limit of stock to be stored by licensed Wholesale Dealers, licenced Roller Floor Mills, Rice Mills. The Item no.3 of sub-clause 3 of Clause 10 reads as under : “ Clause 10(3)(iii) : Maximum stock of rice to be stored by a licensed wholesale dealers-Notwithstanding anything contained in any order, no licensed wholesale dealer under this order shall hold at any time rice stocks exceeding five hundred metric tones in Municipal Corporation Areas and three hundred metric tones in other areas of the State”. 5. Apparently, this item deals with the licensed 4 Wholesale Dealers of rice. It proscribes such dealer from keeping stock exceeding 500 metric tone of rice in Municipal Corporation areas. But having regard to the amended provisions of the Order, a Wholesale dealers of the rice does not require a licence to maintain stock of rice. So, the maximum limit prescribed by clause `3’ quoted above is not applicable to Wholesale Dealers of rice. It is clear that in view of the amended provisions of the Order, this Item is now a redundant provision. 6 In the background of this discussion, let me now turn to the facts of the case. The applicants are the Wholesale Dealers of Rice. They were found possessing certain quantities of rice. Keeping such stock of rice in their possession did not amount to any irregularities or breach of any licence and so the action of seizure and subsequent confiscation is not lawful. The revisions should, therefore, succeed. The Revisions are allowed and the impugned orders of confiscation of rice in both these cases and the orders passed by the Appellate Court, are set aside. Seized stocks of rice of both the applicants shall be released forthwith. (A.V. NIRGUDE) JUDGE gas/crira189.10/ok