IMPORTANT POINT
The Collector can justifiably order confiscation of the entire stock of a dealer who is deliberately dealing in an essential commodity without a licence.

JUDGMENT

K.C. Agarwal. J-This revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of the [Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated June 5, 1982, upholding the order of the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies). Varanasi, confiscating 69 quintals of khandsari and 54 quintals of Gur.

2. On 25th February, 1981, a raid was made of that shop of Mis Shrawan Kumar Dilip Kumar, Visheshwarganj, Varanasi. On verification of the stock, 2 Kattas of were found in excess of the Stock Register Secondly the licence of Khandsari bad although been suspended vide order dated 31st October, 1980 on account of certain irregularities and had not been restored, even then the applicant was doing business on the same.

3. On 2nd March, 1981, a written report was made to the Additional District Magistrate (Civil supplies) on which notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act was issued to Radhey Lal, the proprietor of the applicant firm. On 14th September, 1981, written statement was filed on behalf of the said firm pleading that the notice was illegal and that the applicant firm had not committed any illegality. There was no shortage in the stock of Gur. With regard to the suspension of the licence, the applicant pleaded that he had moved for the renewal of the licence for the year 1981.

4. On 15th April, 1982, the Additional Collector (Civil Supplies), Varanasi, rejected the objection of the applicant holding that there was a difference between the stock found and the entries in the registers. On this finding, 69 quintals of Khandsari and 54 quintals of Gur were confiscated in favour of the State. The District Supply Officer was directed to sell the confiscated goods in the market at the fixed prices and deposit the receipts thereof in the Government Treasury. Against this order, the applicant filed an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge. Varanasi. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejected the appeal. Hence, the present revision.

5. The facts found by the Additional Collector and which had neither been disputed before the, Sessions Judge, nor before me, were that before the raid was made on 25-2-1981, the licence of the applicant firm, obtained under U P. Sugar Evam Gur Dealer Licensing Order, 1962, had been suspended on account of the irregularities found in the running of the &hop by the said firm. Clause (3) of the aforesaid Order required every dealer of Khandsari and Gur to obtain a licence. Without such a licence, no one was permitted to deal with any Khandsari or Gur. The licence of the applicant had been suspended and as; a result of the same, the firm had no right to do business in either Gur or Khandsari. The fact of suspension of the licence was known to Radhey Lal, Proprietor of the applicant firm. He could not carry out the business without licence of which he had full and complete knowledge. As a result of suspension of the licence the applicant was deprived of the exercise of his right to do business. The applicant pleaded before the Additional Collector that since he had applied for the renewal of the licence, he should not be held guilty of running the business without the licence. The submission was rightly not accepted by either the Additional Collector or by the Sessions Judge. A licence could be renewed under the V.P. Khandsari and Gur Control Order provided that it was alive on the date of making of the application. By the suspension of the licence temporarily, the licence got extinguished. The applicant could not legally apply for the renewal which was dead. The objection and the affidavit filed by the applicant before the Additional Collector clearly admitted that the applicant had received information of the suspension of licence. But he did not prefer any legal remedy against the same. The learned counsel for the applicant emphasised before me that as