SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Kar) 57

Karnataka High Court
DEPUTY COMMR, CHITRADURGA - Appellant
Versus
GANGAIAH - Respondent
Decided On : 06-04-75
Cr.R.P. : 547 of 1974

Advocates:
C.N.KAMATH, T.J.CHOUTA

The Judicial Authority (Sessions Judge) can only confirm, modify, or annul the order appealed against under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act and does not have the power to impose a fine.

Headnote:

Essential commodities Act - Confiscation of foodgrains - S. 6a, S. 6c - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Deputy Commissioner passed an order confiscating 98 bags of paddy under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Sessions Judge set aside the order of confiscation but directed respondents to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each.

Finding of the Court:

The Sessions Judge acted in excess of the power conferred on him by S. 6c of the Act by imposing a fine.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Sessions Judge was correct in imposing a fine under S. 6c of the Essential Commodities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Sessions Judge exceeded the power conferred on him by S. 6c of the Act by imposing a fine, which was not within the scope of the section.

Final Decision: The order of the Sessions Judge directing respondents to pay a fine of Rs. 100 was set aside, and the fine amount, if recovered, shall be refunded to them.

( 1 ) ON 11-4-1974, the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, passed an order in the exercise of the power conferred on him by S. 6a of thei Essential commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in Case No. CSD 4 COM 81/1973-74, confiscating 98 bags of paddy on the ground that the, respondents contravened the provisions of Cl (3) of the Karnataka paddy (Regulation of Inter-Dist Transport) Control Order, 1972. On appeal filed under S. 6c of the Act by the respondents against that order, the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by his judgment dl. 8-5-1974 passed in crlma. 24/1974, set aside the order of confiscation, but directed respondents 4 to 6 to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each; he further directed the said 98 bags of paddy to be returned to respondents 4 to 6 on their payment of the said fine. Hence this revision petition by the State.

( 2 ) THE only question that was raised by the learned Govt Pleader for consideration was whether the learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of the power conferred on him by S. 6c of the Act was correct in imposing fine, as aforementioned. S. 6a of the Act which empowers the Collector of a Dist to pass an order of confiscation, and S. 6c of the Act which confers power on the Judicial Authority-Session Judge-to deal with an appeal directed against an order of confiscation passed by a Collector under S. 6a of the Act, read thus :" 6. A Confiscation of Foodgrains, Edible oil-seeds and Edible oils: where any foodgrains, edible oil seeds or edible oils are seized in pursuance of an order made under S. 3 in relation thereto, they may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the District or the Presidency-Town in which the foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils are 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 confiscation of the foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils: 6c: Appeal (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under S. 6a may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to any Judicial Authority appointed by the State Govt concerned and the Judicial Authority shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appalled against. "the contention, of the learned Govt Pleader was that the provisions of s. 6c (1) of the Act did not empower a Sessions Judge to impose fine in the manner it was done in this case, and that the learned Sessions Judge while imposing a fine on respondents 4 to 6 acted in excess of the power conferred on him by S. 6c of the Act and illegally.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, the said contention is well-founded. What S. 6a of the Act provides is that if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of any order made under S. 3 of the Act he may order confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils. Under Section 6c of the Act an appeal is provided against such order of confiscation. The ambit of the power which a Session Judge can exercise while dealing with such an appeal is well defined by the words of that very section; it provides that the Judicial Authority (Sessions Judge) can pass such an order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying, or annulling the order appealed against It is therefore clear from the language of S. 6c of the Act that no power to impose fine is conferred on the Sessions Judge as is done in the present case The words "such order as it may think fit" occurring in S 6c (1) of the Act, in my opinion, cannot be read of understood as conferring such power, and they pan only be understood as plying a discretion to deal with and dispose of such appeals in one of the ways namely, confirming, modifyng or annulling the order appealed against and of course the discretion to be exercised should be judicial To hold otherwise is to





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top