Judgment.- An intricate and important question of interest is raised for resolution in this criminal revision case. The question is: What is the true scope and extent of the enquiry envisaged under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ? The answer to the question must necessarily depend on the legislative language employed in the section. Section 6-B reads:

“Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of foodgrains etc.- No order confiscating any essential commodity shall be made under section 6-A unless the owner of such essential commodity or the person from whom it is seized.

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity;

(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and

(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter”.

The section itself was inserted by section 3 of Act XXV of 1966. The section prescribes the procedure to be followed before any essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 of the Act is confiscated by the Collector under section 6-A of the Act. The section lays down: (a) that a notice in writing must be given to the owner or person from whom the essential commodity is seized; (b) such notice must contain the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity seized; (c) an opportunity of miking a representation in writing within a reasonable time against the grounds of confiscation should be given to the owner or person from whom the essential commodity is seized; and (d) such owner or person should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The procedural safeguard provided in the section contemplates two stages in the proceeding. In the first stage an opportunity is afforded to the owner or person from whom the essential commodity is seized to make a representation in writing within a reasonable time against the grounds of confiscation communicated to him. The second stage is after making such a representation in writing, he is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The scope of the first part of the enquiry is plain enough. But what does the second part of the enquiry relating to “reasonable opportunity of being heard” imply?

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a “reasonable opportunity of being heard” implies the examination of the concerned person and his witnesses, if any, produced by him. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ramaswamy, submits that the expression contemplates only an opportunity of being heard in person or through Counsel and the enquiring authority is not obliged to examine either the person, concerned or his witnesses.

3. The Essential Commodities Act was enacted in 1955 with the dominant object and intendment of ensuring equitable distribution and adequate availability at fair prices of essential commodities defined or notified under the Act. But the administrative and penal measures devised for dealing with the defaulting persons under the Act were rendered ineffective by getting round the provisions of the Act by some sections of trade and middlemen. In order to make the administration of the Act more effective, sections 6-A to 6-D were inserted by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Amending Act (XXV of 1966). Section 6-A provides for the confiscation of the essential commodities seized for the contravention of an order made under section 3 of the Act. Section 6-B prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Collector before an order of confiscation is made by him under section 6-A. Under section 6-C an appeal is provided for a person aggrieved against an order passed under section 6-A.

4. The procedure prescribed under section 6-B of the Act is based upon expediency and policy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document