S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) THE point that requires consideration is the scope and ambit of restriction that can be imposed for an interim custody/release of a vehicle used in carrying essential commedities pending enquiry for contravening the provisions of orders issued under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). It arises thus :-

( 2 ) TEMPO (Matador mini lorry) bearing No. MNX 5532 carrying 44 bags of cement branded as 'imported cement' was intercepted and seized on the night of 22nd August, 1983 by bajpe Police, Dakshina Kannada for alleged contravention of an order issued under S. 3 of the Act. Contention of the petitioner is that the lorry was hired for transportation of cement and bona fide believed the transportation is under a valid permit. The validity of the interim order made on 1-9-1983 by the Deputy Commissioner, dakshina Kannada ordering release of the lorry pending enquiry as against bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- is challenged on the ground that the imposition of such condition is illegal and onerous, while Government Advocate justifies on the ground that it is in consonance with the provisions of the Act.

( 3 ) ON production of commodity and the vehicle in which it was being transported, the Deputy Commissioner after issuing show cause notice to persons interested is required to hold an enquiry as provided under s. 6b of the Act. S. 6a provides for confiscation of essential commodity, package, covering, animal, vehicle or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. On enquiry if it is established that the transportation is in contravention of any of orders issued under S. 3 of the Act, Deputy Commissioner may order confiscation of either whole of part of the commodity depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case including the vehicle.

( 4 ) THE only rider imposed for exercise of power of confiscation of a vehicle is that an option to pay a fine equivalent to the market price of the commodity sought to be transported has to be given to the owner as contemplated under the second proviso to S. 6-A of the Act introduced by Central Act 92 of 1976 which reads thus :-"s. 6-A. of the Principal Act shall be re-numbered as sub-sec. (1) thereof and - a) xx xx xx xx xx (i) xx xx xx xx xx (ii) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely : - provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given on option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance",analysis of this proviso leads to this- (A) before ordering confiscation option should be given to the owner; (B) fine proposed should not exceed the market price; (c) market price should be as on the date of the seizure; and (d) market price is that of the commodity sought to be carried.

( 5 ) THE upper limit of fine prescribed is the market value of the commodity as on the date of. the seizure. The phrase 'at the date of the seizure' de-note point of time. The absence of proper punctuation has given scope for controversy as to whether the market price referred to therein is that of the vehicle or of the commodity seized. It is true, punctuation is disregarded in construction of statutes. In this context, it is necessary to notice the observation of B. K. Mukherjia, J. in Aswinikutnar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose air. 1952 SC 396 which reads thus :-"i need not deny punctuation may have its uses in some cases, but cannot entirely be regarded as a controlling element and cannot be allowed to control the plain meaning of the text". The irrelevance of the punctuation has two consequences as observed at page 14 of Maxwell on the interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth edition-"first, a pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document