JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 20th December, 1985 dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi dated 8th November, 1985 This Court by order dated 25th August, 1986 granted special leave limited to the following question.

"One of the questions raised by the learned Counsel before us is whether the samples taken from 3 out of 80 bags of khandsari could be treated as representative samples. He has cited before us a judgment of the High Court where it has been held that they cannot be so treated. We grant special leave limited to the question stated above. We find no force in other submissions."

2. In order to decide the above question we would mention facts in brief necessary in this regard.

3. In a raid in the business premises of the appellant on 28th February, 1980, the following bags of Khandsari (sugar) were seized in the presence of Shri Ram Niwas, sole proprietor of the firm.

Khandsari - 53 bags

Khandsari (dust) - 18 bags

Khandsari (sulphur) - 9 bags

Total - 80 bags

Two samples each from all the three varieties of Khandsari were taken and three samples of sugar were sent for analysis to the public analyst. The public analyst reported that the samples of sugar contained Sucrose - 93.5%, 94.2% and 97.16% respectively. The Collector passed an order confiscating the entire goods as the same were kept in contravention of the provisions of Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (in short the Licensing Order). It is not necessary to mention the details of this order of confiscation because the matter had gone into the High Court and the case was ultimately remanded by the High Court of Delhi by order dated 27th March, 1984. The High Court directed the Collector for de novo determination of the proceedings under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in accordance with law. The Collector (North) after remand gave a fresh show cause notice to the appellant on 21st May, 1984 setting forth the brief sequence of the proceedings and asking him to show cause as to why the entire stock of 80 bags of sugar seized in the case, be not confiscated to the State? The appellant appeared and filed a written reply to the show cause notice. The case was then heard at length and the Collector again passed an order confiscating the entire stock of 80 quintals of sugar. An appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi by order dated 8th November, 1985. A writ petition filed against the order of the Lt. Governor was dismissed in limine by the High Court by order dated 20th December, 1985. Hence this appeal.

4. Clause 2(f)(i) of the Licensing Order defines sugar as under:

"Sugar means any form of sugar including Khandsari sugar containing more than 90% of Sucrose."

Under the Licensing Order a person was entitled to keep only up to a maximum of 10 quintals of sugar, without a licence. Admittedly the appellant was not having any licence.

5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in order to prove that Khandsari was sugar under the Licensing Order, it was necessary to prove that it contained more than 90% of Sucrose. It was submitted that the prosecution only took two samples each out of the three bags from the entire lot of 80 bags of Khandsari and this could at the most show that only 3 quintals of Khandsari was sugar and the same being less than 10 quintals, there was no violation of the Licensing Order. It was submitted that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant was in possession of more than 10 quintals of sugar and this could only be done by taking samples from all the bags of Khandsari if it wanted to show that other bags of Khandsari also contained more than 90 bags of Sucrose. It was also submitted that the possibility cannot be excluded that those bags from which samples were not taken, did not contain Sucrose more than 90% It was