- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sat Pal v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant’s truck, valued at approximately one lakh rupees, was seized at the Haryana-Delhi border while carrying 75 maunds of cattle fodder. The driver and associated accused were prosecuted and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening a Haryana Government order that prohibited export of cattle fodder from Haryana to Delhi. The trial Magistrate not only convicted the accused but, invoking Section 7(1)(b), ordered confiscation of the appellant’s truck. The Sessions Judge and, later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the confiscation. The appellant, who had not been a party to the criminal proceedings, sought relief under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court, arguing that the confiscation was harsh and arbitrary. After the High Court dismissed his plea, he obtained special-leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging solely the legality of the confiscation order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the order of confiscation of the appellant’s truck under Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act (as it stood in 1969) was legally sustainable.
- Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the court ought to have exercised its discretionary power under the proviso to Section 7(1)(b) to refrain from ordering forfeiture.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- No attempt to export fodder outside Haryana was proved.
- Even if export occurred, mere export of cattle fodder was not prohibited by law.
- The High Court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside an unduly harsh and arbitrary confiscation; the proviso to Section 7(1)(b) furnished discretion that should have been exercised in the appellant’s favour.
The opinion does not provide details of the respondent’s arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court addressed each contention:
- Attempt to export: Both the trial and appellate courts had found as a fact that the truck was seized while attempting to cross into Delhi. The Supreme Court accepted this concurrent finding and dismissed the first contention.
- Legality of export: The Court noted a notified order issued by the Haryana Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act that expressly prohibited export of cattle fodder from Haryana to Delhi. Violation was punishable under Section 7(1)(b). Hence the second contention lacked merit.
- Exercise of discretion under the proviso: The Court emphasized that Section 7(1)(b) vests discretion in the court, via its proviso, to withhold forfeiture “for reasons to be recorded.” Three “special circumstances” justified non-confiscation:
- The appellant, as owner of the vehicle, had not been made a party to the criminal proceedings and was denied an opportunity to be heard on confiscation.
- The truck was a high-value asset, and its forfeiture for a single attempt to export fodder would be unduly harsh and cause serious injustice.
- No evidence showed that the appellant knowingly authorised or concurred in the truck’s use for the prohibited activity.
Exercising the same power vested in the trial court, the Supreme Court substituted its own decision for that of the lower courts and annulled the forfeiture.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the orders of confiscation passed by the Magistrate, upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, are set aside, and the truck is to be returned to the appellant.
Implications: The decision underscores that courts must actively consider and articulate reasons when exercising (or declining to exercise) the discretion provided in the proviso to Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. While the ruling offers relief only to the present appellant and sets no new precedent in terms of statutory interpretation, it signals that forfeiture of valuable property should not be imposed mechanically where mitigating circumstances exist and the owner lacks culpable involvement.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 24, 1972 by which a revision petition of the accused who was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was dismissed and a plea raised by the present appellant that the order of confiscation of his truck be cancelled, was overruled. In the instant case, we are not at all concerned with merits of the conviction of the accused. The only point that arises for determination is, whether the order of the Magistrate directing the confiscation of the truck under Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act as it stood in 1969 is legally valid. The appellant had filed a petition before the High Court under Section 561-A praying that the order of the Magistrate was extremely harsh and worked serious injustice to the appellant whose property worth one lac has been confiscated for an attempt to export from Haryana to Delhi 75 maunds of cattle fodder. The High Court does not appear to have considered the merits of the application filed by the petitioner but while deciding the case of the accused on merits, it upheld the order of confiscation.
2. Mr Bhardwaj appearing for the appellant submitted three contentions before us. In the first place it was argued that there is nothing to show that there was any attempt to export fodder in the truck outside the border of Haryana. We have considered this argument but in view of the findings of fact arrived by the Courts below, it is established beyond doubt that the truck belonging to the appellant was seized on the Haryana-Delhi border when it wanted to cross the border and enter the Delhi border. Thus a clear attempt to export the fodder to Delhi was clearly proved. Secondly, it was argued that the mere exporting of cattle fodder, is not prohibited by law. This argument is also without any substance inasmuch as there was a notified Order passed by the Haryana Government under which the export of cattle fodder was prohibited from Haryana to Delhi. This Order was passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of this Order was punishable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. This argument is, therefore, overruled.
3. The last point put forward before us by the counsel for the appellant was that although the appellant had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A CrPC to cancel the order in view of its harshness and arbitrariness, yet the High Court did not consider this point at all. It was submitted that, at any rate, this was a most suitable case in which the discretion under the proviso to Section 7(1)(b) could have been exercised by the Government. We find ourselves in complete agreement with this argument which is well-founded and must prevail. Section 7(1)(b) reads thus:
“Any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as to the Court may seem fit including any pack ages, coverings or receptacles, in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the property, shall be forfeited to the Government:
Provided that if the Court is of opinion that it is not necessary to direct forfeiture in respect of the whole or, as the case may be, any part of the property or any packages, coverings or receptacles or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, it may for reasons to be recorded, refrain from doing so.”
4. A perusal of the section and also of the proviso clearly shows that the Court has undoubtedly a discretion in suitable cases for reasons to be recorded for not imposing the penalty of confiscation. In the instant case there are special circumstances which clearly attract the application of the proviso and the order of confiscation ought not to have been passed by the Magistrate. To begin with, the appellant was not a party to the proceedings as he was not given an opportunity to show cause to the Court the circumstances under which the order of confiscation could be passed. Secondly, the truck of the appellant was a very valuable property and to order its confiscation merely because an attempt was made to export cattle fodder through it, would indeed be a very harsh order so as to work serious injustice to the appellant. Thirdly, there is no evidence to indicate that the truck which was used to carry the fodder was hired with the knowledge or concurrence of the appellant. Having regard to these special circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that this was a fit case in which the Court ought to have exercised its discretion under the proviso in not imposing the penalty of confiscation. As the present appeal is directed against an order of confiscation, this Court also exercises the same power as the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Magistrate as also the orders of the Sessions Judge and High Court upholding the order. The truck will now be returned to the appellant.
Alert