Hundred bags of paddy transported without the documents required under the Licensing Order, 1991 were seized and confiscated. The Court held a transporter must carry the Clause 11 documents with the consignment and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1119
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6289 of 2008)
JANUARY 22, 2010
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Schedule Commodity Dealer (Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991Clause 11-Confiscation of paddy on account of violation of C clause 11-Legality of-Held: It was incumbent on the part of the transporter to carry documents mentioned in 91flUSe 11 along with the consignment-Since the said docufl'lents were not carried along with the consignment, there was no illegality in the seizure and confiscation thereof.-Madhya Pradesh D Ess~ntial Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price control) Order, 1997-Clause 6(2).
D
Words and phrases: Expression 'dealef'.-Meaning of - In the context of Clause 2(e) of Madhya Pradesh Schedule E Commodity Dealer (Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991 and Clause 2(a) of Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price control) Order, 1997-Discussed.
Hundred bags of paddy transported by truck F belonging to petitioner no.2 were seized and thereafter in accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh · Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price control) Order, 1997, the seized paddy was confiscated. The confiscation order was upheld by the Sessions G . Judge and by the High Court .
In Special Leave, it was contended by the petitioner that "dealer" in terms of clause 2(a) includes any person
1119
H
(2010] 1 $.C.R.
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
/
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. v. STATE OF 1121 CHHATIISGARH
authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence holder in respect of the said consignment. It was necessary for the said· documents to accompany the consignment of paddy which was being transported. [Paras. 11 and 13) [1125-F-G; 1126-A-B; 1126-D-F]
A
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.) ~o. 6289 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.3.2008 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 459 D of 2002.
;. Sa~rabh Suman Sinha, Prashant Mishra, Gaurav Agrawal for the Petitioners.
'
Aniruddha P. Mayee for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Special Leave Petitipn is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2008, passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in Crl. · F Revision No.459 of 2002, dismissing the same:
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
1122
A Order, 1997, confiscation proceedings were initiated and the seized paddy was ordered to be confiscated by the Collector. An appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilsapur, in Crl. Appeal No.65 of 2001, confirming the order dated 13th March, 2001, passed B by the Collector and Licensing Authority, Janjgir Champa, in Case No.60 of 2000. The Appellate Order was questioned in revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur and the same was also dismissed on 18th March, 2009. The said decision is the subject matter of the present Special Leave c . Petition.
10th September, 1998, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The amended definition of "dealer" included any person dealing with any essential commodity included in the Schedule to the G "Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991, hereinafter referred to as "the Licensing Order, 1991 ", and if dealing with only one commodity under the said Order at any time in quantity of more than 200 (two hundred) quintals.
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. v. STATE OF 1123 CHHATTISGARH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
in clause 2(e) to mean a person who is engaged or intends to A engage in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one food grain specified in Schedule I in quantity of 10 quintals or more at any one time and in respect of all food grains taken together in quantity of 50 quintals or more at any one time. Certain other commodities were also referred to B which are not relevant for our purpose. The said Licensing Order, 1991, was amended by a notification dated 27th April, 1998, by· the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, wherein the definition of "dealer" was once again amended to mean a person, partnership firm, c association or any registered body engaged iri or intends to engage in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale (not including store of commodities produced by him by personal cultivation) and includes the business of commercial agent, and processor dealing in any or all of the scheduled 0 commodities, other than sugar, of only one of scheduled commodities at any one time in quantity of more than 200 quintals. Mr. Sinha sought to urge that the definition of "dealer", therefore, did not include persons dealing in any one Scheduled commodity at any time in quantities of less than 200 quintals. E It was urged that the Licensing Order, 1991, would be attracted only if the transactions involved more than 200 quintals of a Scheduled commodity at any one time.
F
G
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
E seizure and confiscation of the paddy was wholly arbitrary and was liable to be set aside with a direction for return of the seized goods.
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. v. STATE OF 1125 CHHATTISGARH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
would be a "dealer" and would also be considered as a "dealer" for transportation of any goods, even if the same was below 200 quintals. It was submitted it was precisely for such a reason persons dealing in food grains were required to hold a licence for dealing in the said commodity in respect of quantities as indicated in the Licensing Order, 1991.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 1 S.C.R.
D the documents indicated therein are to be carried along with the consignment being transported, the documents concerned are safeguards against clandestine dealing in the food grains covered by the Licensing Order, 1991. The receipt or invoice as also the name of the customer and Licence Number, if any,
E the date of transaction and the quantity of paddy sold, are documents which prove the authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence holder in respect of the said consignment. We are of the view that it was necessary for the said documents to accompany the consignment of paddy which
F was being transported.
G 15. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
D.G.
Special Leave Petition dismissed.
H
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satyanarayana Sultania
Anr.
State of Chhattisgarh
Altamas Kabir
Cyriac Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
