Back
1981 Supreme(AP) 136
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO
A.Krishnaiah - Appellant
Versus
State THROUGH VIGILANCE CELL, MAHABUBNAGAR - Respondent
Decided On : 07-01-81
The prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not barred even if proceedings against the accused were dropped under Section 6-A of the Act.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Essential Commodities Act, 1955', 'SUBJECT': 'Prosecution under Section 7 after Dropping of Proceedings under Section 6-A', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Section 6-A, Section 6-B, Section 6-C, Section 6-D, Section 6-E, Section 7', 'SUMMARY': "The court held that prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not barred even if proceedings against the accused were dropped under Section 6-A of the Act. The court interpreted Section 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-D, 6-E, and 7 of the Act and concluded that the Collector's power to confiscate essential commodities under Section 6-A does not prevent the Criminal Court from punishing the accused under Section 7. The court also clarified that the Collector can only confiscate the commodity but cannot convict or sentence the accused, while the Magistrate can convict and sentence the accused but cannot confiscate the commodity."}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with violating the Cement Control Order and was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, the Joint Collector dropped the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act after an enquiry. The petitioner argued that he could not be prosecuted under Section 7 since the proceedings under Section 6-A were dropped.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution under Section 7 was not barred even though the proceedings under Section 6-A were dropped. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act and concluded that the Collector's power to confiscate essential commodities under Section 6-A does not prevent the Criminal Court from punishing the accused under Section 7.
Issues: Whether a person could be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, when proceedings against him were dropped under Section 6-A of that Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-D, 6-E, and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and concluded that the Collector's power to confiscate essential commodities under Section 6-A does not prevent the Criminal Court from punishing the accused under Section 7. The court also clarified that the Collector can only confiscate the commodity but cannot convict or sentence the accused, while the Magistrate can convict and sentence the accused but cannot confiscate the commodity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, even though the proceedings against him were dropped under Section 6-A of the Act.
( 1 ) THE question for my consideration in this petition is whether a person could not be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, when proceedings against him were dropped under Section 6-A of that Act?
( 2 ) THE petitioner is doing business in Iron and Cement under the name and style of akarapu Sivaprasad at Nagarkurnool and Palem in mahaboobnagar district. He was granted a licence under the Cement control Order. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Mahaboobnagar, inspected his shop at Palem on 12th March, 1980 and found some irregularities in the sale of cement. He submitted a report to the Joint Collector, mihaboobnagar to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he seized the cement stock. He also filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the judicial First Class Magistrate at Nagarkurnool for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act.
( 3 ) THE Joint Collector, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause against five charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation. After enquiry, the Joint Collector, by his order dated 23rd January, 1981 held that the five charges were not proved and, therefore, dropped the proceedings and directed the release of the seized stock or its value to the petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, did not file any appeal against that order and, it has become final.
( 4 ) THE charge-sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell before the Magistrate is still pending.
( 5 ) IN this petition it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were dropped by the Joint Collector, after holding a regular enquiry, it means, there is no violation of the provisions of the Cement Control Order; if so, the petitioner could not be prosecuted once again under Section 7 of the act. To drive home bis point he relied upon the change in the wording of section 6-A of the Act, after its amendment in 1974 and other provisions.
( 6 ) SECTION 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as it stood before the amendment in 1974 reads as follows: "where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, it May Be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscal ion of the essential commodity so seized", (emphasis supplied ). By Act 30 of 1974, clauses (a) (b) and (c) in sub-section (1) of Section 6-A were substituted with effect from 22nd June, 1974. The second proviso to sub section (1) and sub-section (2) and (3) were added by Act 92 of 1976 dated 2nd September, 1976. To the extent the amended Section is relevant it reads as follows:"6-A (1), Where essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, Direct the Essential commodity so Seized to be Produced for Inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of (a) the essential commodity so seized, (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in cariying such essential commodity. . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as
