Old order reversed confiscation of 10% of seized stock to Rs.10,000 while dismissing the rest of the criminal revision regarding essential commodities act violations.
Confiscation of 10% of seized stock restricted to Rs.10,000.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1423 OF 2003
ORDER:
1 This revision is directed against the orders of the Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole in RC.H1/6A/96/93 dated 09.11.1996 as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole in Criminal Appeal No.203 of 1998 dated 31.07.2003 whereby the authorities below ordered confiscation of 10% of the seized commodity.
2 The facts in brief are that on credible information the Circle Inspector (Vigilance Cell) Ongole along with his staff proceeded towards Chagallu village on 18.10.1993 and noticed an oil tanker situated on the Western side of N.H. Road – 5 and found one person sitting on the tanker with can of kerosene and preparing to pour kerosene into the compartment by opening the lids of the compartments. On seeing the vigilance officials, the said person ran away. On observation the Inspector of Vigilance found the valves of the first compartment of petrol are opened by tampering the seals, and four plastic cans containing full of kerosene and one plastic pipe and funnel were kept by the side of the oil tanker. Concluding that the said person who is the driver of the said vehicle is trying to pilfer the petrol, the inspector seized the oil tanker bearing No.AP 27 T 1112 along with 4000 litres of petrol and 8,000 litres of diesel and 115 litres of kerosene in plastic cans under the cover of mediators report and reported the matter to the Joint Collector who in turn initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act and the petitioner who is the owner of the oil tanker was served with a notice and he too offered a detailed explanation. At the instance of the
petitioner the oil tanker was ordered to be released in his favour on his furnishing bank guarantee for 10% of the value of the stock seized from the tanker and a personal bond undertaking for the remaining 90% value of the seized stock. After considering his explanation and holding a detailed enquiry, the Joint Collector by his order dated 09.11.1996 ordered confiscation of 10% of the seized stock of petrol and diesel, 100% of the seized stock of kerosene and the entire bank guarantee. The same was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.203 of 1998 before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge at Ongole while allowing the said appeal partly and setting aside the order of the Joint Collector in so far as confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock of petrol and diesel, however, confirmed the same in so far as 10% of confiscation relating to the petitioner is concerned. The same is questioned in this revision.
3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4 Having perused the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the said judgment needs no interference. Apparently, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the said crime. May be it is a fact that the driver was adulterating petrol with kerosene, but it cannot be said that the petitioner has no knowledge. In fact in this type of cases, for the acts of the servant, the master also shall be held liable. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the said findings arrived at by both the authorities below.
5 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. However, the said confiscation of 10% is restricted to Rs.10,000/-.
23.09.2010
Kvsn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision against the confiscation order required interference despite the petitioner being the vehicle owner with potential constructive knowledge of the driver's acts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (owner of oil tanker)
Joint Collector
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
