Whether unadulterated essential commodity can confiscated under essential commodities Act?

 The appellate authority has confirmed the order
of confiscation of 3000 liters of H.S.D(high speed diesel)
 as it was
adulterated, but it has set aside the order in respect of
remaining 9000 liters of H.S.D. by observing that it was
not adulterated. This approach is not at all correct. When
the offence is committed, when there is contravention of
the order issued under section 3 or 4 of the Act, such
segregation is not possible. If the tanker can be
confiscated as adulterated essential commodity was being
carried in it, the remaining essential commodity which
was not found to be adulterated, can also be confiscated
as the person who was doing such act tries to use such
tactics. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No.1449 of 2016
 Deepak S/o Kashinath Aher,

V
 The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

 DATE : 3 FEBRUARY 2017
Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1247

Print Page

Supreme Court: Procedure to be followed by collector when Essential commodity is seized

This Court while dealing with a similar issue in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 549, held that whenever any essential commodity is seized, pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector has no power to order release of the commodity in favour of the owner. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and purpose of the statute and the mischief it seeks to guard, it was further held that the word “release” in Section 6-E is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc. so that the same becomes available to the consumer public. The court held as under: “… No unqualified and unrestricted power has been conferred on the Collector of releasing the commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood completed and before the termination of the prosecution in the acquittal of the offender. Such a view would render Clause (b) of Section 7(1) totally nugatory and would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act. The view that the Act itself contemplates a situation which would render Section 7(1)(b) otiose where the essential commodity is disposed of by the Collector under Section 6-A(2) is misconceived. Section 6-A does not empower the Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, a fine not exceeding the market value of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized along with the essential commodity. Only a limited power of sale of the commodity in the manner prescribed by Section 6-A(2) is granted. The power conferred by Section 6- A(2) to sell the essential commodity has to be exercised in public interest for maintaining the supplies and for securing the equitable distribution of the essential commodity.”

Supreme Court of India

State Of Bihar & Anr vs Arvind Kumar & Anr on 23 July, 2012

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar

Print Page