• Sunil Kumar Dyalani, S/o Shri Bhimandas Dyalani, aged about 34 Years, R/o Sindhi v. • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Collector
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.09.12 17:05:24 +0530 2025:CGHC:46886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 700 of 2012 • Sunil Kumar Dyalani, S/o Shri Bhimandas Dyalani, aged about 34 Years, R/o Sindhi Colony, PS Civil Lines, Tah. and Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ---Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Collector (Food Branch), Bilaspur, C.G. ---Non-applicant CRR No. 701 of 2012
Legal Reasoning
• Raj Kumar Sidara, S/o Shrichand Sidara, aged about 47 Years, R/o Main Road, Torwa, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the District Collector (Food Branch), Bilaspur C.G. For Respective Applicants ---Non-applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Mr. Rohan Shukla and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates. For State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) (Order on Board) 12.09.2025 1. Since both the criminal revisions involve a common question regarding the legality and procedural propriety of the confiscation orders, they
Decision
are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2 2. Both the above-captioned criminal revisions have been preferred by the respective applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 71/2012 and 70/2012, affirming the order dated 18.04.2011 of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Food Case Nos.03/2009-10 & 06/2009-10 respectively, whereby the confiscation of 1986.50 quintal of sugar and 698.89 quintal of Urad Dal respectively in favour of State of Chhattisgarh has been upheld under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'). 3. CRR No.700/2012- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.08.2009, based on the report of the Assistant Food Officer, Bilaspur, and under the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, an inspection of the firm of applicant- Sunil Kumar Dayalani was conducted in the presence of Mahesh Dayalani, director of the firm. The investigation revealed that the stock register was not updated. As per records, the initial stock of sugar was 1118 quintals, while physical verification revealed 2086.50 quintals. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for further inquiry. 4. CRR No.701/2012- Similarly, in this case, on 20.01.2010, the firm- Rajkumar Shrichand Dal Mill, Torwa, Bilaspur, was inspected under the direction of the Food Officer, Bilaspur, in the presence of the proprietor/applicant- Rajkumar Sidara. The proprietor stated that the firm was engaged in trading and accounting. During the inspection, it was found that the stock price display board was not maintained and the stock register was not produced. According to the records, the total stock was 2370.52 quintals of Urad Dal products, whereas upon 3 physical verification, 4590.00 quintals of Urad Dal products were found, indicating a substantial discrepancy. After that, the matter was taken up for further inquiry. 5. Initially, by order dated 18.04.2011, the District Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the excess stock. Accordingly, out of the total 2086.50 quintals of sugar seized, 1986.50 quintals of sugar & 698.89 quintals of Urad Dal products respectively were confiscated in favour of the Government. The appeals preferred by the applicants against the said order was dismissed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 06.07.2012. Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.07.2012, the applicants have preferred these criminal revisions. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants submits that the confiscation orders passed by both the District Magistrate and the Appellate Court are perverse and unsustainable in law. He further submits that in the present cases, no notice was issued by the Collector under Section 6(B) of the Act, 1955, which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiating confiscation proceedings. In support of his submission, he relies on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mukesh Hariani vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRR No. 699 of 2012 on 13.08.2021, wherein similar confiscation orders were quashed on account of the same procedural lapse. Therefore, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside and both the revisions be allowed on the ground of parity. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned orders, but admitted that no specific notice under Section 6(B) of the Act, 1955 was issued by the Collector prior to initiating confiscation proceedings. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the notice under Section 6B of the Act, 1955 was required to be issued by the Collector at the time of initiating confiscation proceedings or not. 10. The legal procedure for confiscation under the Act, 1955 mandates that, before passing any order of confiscation, the Collector must issue a show-cause notice to the person concerned, in accordance with Section 6B of the said Act. The purpose of such a notice is to afford the affected party an opportunity to explain or justify the stock discrepancy. 11. At this stage, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions contained in Section 6B of the Act, 1955, which reads as under: “6B. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of food grains, etc.―[(1)] No order confiscating [any [essential commodity] package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance] shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such [essential commodity] package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance) or the person from whom [it is seized]― (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the [essential commodity] package, covering, or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance]; (b) is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the ground of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. [(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.] [(3) No order confiscating any essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section (1), if, in giving such 5 notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with.] 12. A plain reading of Section 6B of the Act, 1955 makes it clear that the procedural requirements stipulated therein are mandatory in nature. These provisions must be strictly and scrupulously followed by the Collector-cum-Licensing Authority. The authority is required to issue a written notice specifying the grounds for proposed confiscation, provide the affected party a reasonable time to submit a written representation, and offer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, in the present cases, no specific notice or separate and independent proceedings were initiated by the Collector under Section 6B of the Act after finding the applicants guilty of violating the Control Order, 2009. Instead, a composite show-cause notice was served for initiating confiscation under Section 6A of the Act based on the alleged violation of the Control Order, 2009. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a procedure adopted by the Collector-cum-Licensing Authority is clearly illegal, amounting to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 6B of the Act, 1955. This procedural lapse has deprived the applicants of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, rendering the confiscation proceedings bad in law. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mukesh Hariani (supra) has also quashed confiscation orders on similar grounds of procedural impropriety. 13. In light of the foregoing, this Court holds that the confiscation orders/impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Court, in respect of both sugar and Urad Dal stocks, are unsustainable in law and are accordingly quashed. 6 14. In the result, both the criminal revisions are allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. as well as the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, C.G. are hereby set aside. 15. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh