Section 6-C of the Act provides that appeal can be filed against the order of the Collector. Section 6-E shows that no Court or Tribunal can make order with regard to the possession etc. of the essential commodity so seized and also in respect of the vehicle if the essential commodity was being carried in a vehicle if the Collector starts confiscation proceedings. In criminal case also, there is presumption of culpable mental state available against the accused u/s 10-C of the Act if the offence requires existence of such culpable mental state.
8] In view of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes necessary for every Magistrate or other Court when a matter like present one comes before it to make necessary enquiry with regard to the compliance of Section 6-A of the Act. The Court or Magistrate of Tribunal is expected to bring to the notice of seizing officer that such report needs to be made to the Collector and it becomes necessary for the Magistrate or the Court as the case may be to make enquiry with the Collector as to whether the Collector is likely to take action u/s 6-A of the Act. So, the Magistrate cannot pass straightway the order of interim custody with regard to the essential commodity and even with regard to the vehicle before making such enquiry.
9] The defence of a person like transporter or contractor like the present one cannot be considered at this stage. The provisions of the Act show that the contravention is required to be proved only against the person who was found in possession of essential commodity and so, even at this stage, prima facie case needs to be made against the person from whose possession the
essential commodity and the vehicle are seized for contravention. This can be seen in Section 6-B of the Act. This Section provides that confiscation of essential commodity can be made by giving opportunity of being heard either to the owner or to person from whom the commodity is seized. Section 6-B [2] is in respect of the vehicle only and it is not in respect of the essential commodity. Under Section 6-B [2] of the Act, the owner of the vehicle has right to take defence that the vehicle was used for the purposes alleged by seizing officer without the knowledge or connivance of the owner. Thus, special powers are given to the Collector with regard to the commodity. Thus the J.M.F.C. has committed error in making the order of interim custody in favour of the present applicant.
Bombay High Court
Haridas Pralhadrao Ghumare Vs State of Maharashtra on 20 June, 2012
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
citation;2012 CR L J (NOC)587 bombay
