COMMON JUDGMENT

1) The Applicant - State of Gujarat has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.559/2007 under Section 397 (section 438 of BNSS) read with Section 401 (Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”), challenging the order dated 26.06.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.14/2006, whereby the appeal preferred by the accused was partly allowed and 50% essential commodities in question or its price decided as per concerned rules was ordered to be paid to the accused after following the procedure laid down in the Essential Commodities Act.

2) Whereas, the accused – owners of fair price shop have preferred Criminal Revision Application Nos.107 and 108 of 2012 under Section 397 (section 438 of BNSS) read with Section 401 (Section 442 of BNSS) of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Collector confiscating 100% seized stock to the tune of Rs.45,600/- as well as the judgment and order dated 26.06.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.13 and 14 of 2006, whereby the appeals preferred by the applicants-accused were partly allowed and ordered to confiscate 50% seized stocks instead of 100%.

3) Heard Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP and Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants – owners of the fair price ship.

4) Brief facts of the case are that, the applicants of Revision Applications No.107 and 108 of 2012 were owners of the fair price shop at village Ranpur since last many years and on 10.07.2008 and 19.07.2005, District Supply OfÏcer visited the shop of the applicants and certain irregularities were found. Therefore, stocks of various items were seized total of Rs.2,60,000/-. Also, one of the applicants owned tractor bearing registration no. GJ-1-AQ-4182 and the trolly bearing registration no, GJ-1-W-4182. The son of brother of applicant had requested the applicant to provide tractor and trolly for the purpose of transporting the stock of essential articles as he was running the fair price shop. The driver without the knowledge and consent of the applicant as well as his nephew, left the said vehicle unattended which was loaded with stock of essential articles at the wadi of Bashirbhai, which were seized during investigation. The applicant has been held responsible since his vehicle has been involved for the alleged irregularities. In pursuance of the inspection conducted by the supply ofÏcers on 10.7.2005 and 19.7.2005, the stock of various items were seized total amounting to Rs. 2,60,600/- Thereafter, show cause notice dated 23.8.2006 was issued by the respondent No. 2 under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicants replied to the said show-cause notice on 23.09.2006. However, without properly appreciating the facts, the authority has passed an order to confiscate 100% stocks vide order dated 16.10.2006. The said order was assailed before the learned District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), by preferring Criminal Appeals, which came to be partly allowed and modified the order of Collector ordering to confiscate 50% of the stocks instead of 100%.

5) Learned APP for the State in CRRA No.559/2007 has submitted that the order passed by the authority was required to be confirmed in view of the fact that the stock was kept in the vaadi of Basirbhai at Ranpur which was to be disposed of illegally, which would prejudice the poor people who were entitled to get the stock of essential commodities. At the time of raid, the muddamal stock was found in tractor which was lying unattended, for which the applicants owners of tractor failed to give proper and satisfactory explanation and thereby, the applicants have violated the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the learned Addl. District Judge has erroneously modified the order of Collector and ordered to confiscate 50% stocks instead of 100%. In view of the same, learned APP h