State Of Karnataka Vs. Krishna Bhima Walvakar &amp; Anr
legal fiction, treats the owners to have control over the edible oil, edible oil seeds and cakes, in transit. The respondent No. 4, being the purchaser, also comes within the definition of stock-holder by reason of the said Explanation. There is nothing to show that the consignor had, reserved the jus-disponendi by the terms of the contract or appropriation and, therefore, the property in the goods passed to the respondent No. 4 on their delivery to a common carrier under S. 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 12. The allegation in the complaint is that 40 barrels of groundnut oil weighing 7, 200 kg. were being transported by the truck bearing No. MHL 2675 without furnishing the requisite declaration in Form II and it was intercepted at the Hukeri cheek-post by the Sub-Inspector of Police. In response to a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-B of the Act, the respondent No. 4 produced before him the documents of title in relation to the goods. From these documents, it is clear that the consignor was Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, Kampli and the consignee was Messers Anant Oil Mills, Nippani and that the truck was laden with the consignment. These facts were also borne out by the particulars furnished in the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 13. It appears from these documents that Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, after despatching the consignment, purported to furnish the declaration in Form II to the Tahsildar, Hospet, which was received by him on 7-6-1977, requesting for the release of the groundnut oil in question. The respondent No. 4 contended before the Deputy Commissioner that there was substantial compliance of the requirements of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and, therefore, the Seized groundnut oil be released; but he rejected the contention on the ground that the declaration in Form II was required to be filed before the specified officer before the goods left the place. The Deputy Commissioner requisitioned the form produced before the Tahsildar, but it did not bear any date. He was of the view that the declaration was not sent by registered post on 6-6-1977 as asserted, but had apparently been handed over in the Taluka Office and acknowledgment obtained for the same. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the requirement of law was that the declaration in Form II had to be produced at every check-post during transit, and this was not done. The driver of the truck did not have a copy of the declaration in Form II, but only the declaration in Form 39 which could not be taken to be in compliance of law. Obviously, the stock-holder, Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, after despatching the consignment of groundnut oil, purported to furnish the declaration in Form II. This was in complete breach of the requirements of sub-cls. (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, held that the respondents having contravened the provisions of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order, the seized truck along with the entire consignment of the groundnut oil was liable to be confiscated under S. 6-A of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, rightly confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 6-A of the Act as it was unassailable. At no point of time was there a contention raised that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to exercise his discretion as to the quantity of the groundnut oil liable to be seized. It is now too late in the day to urge the point before this Court 14. As to point No. (2), there is no warrant for the submission that there was nothing to show that the groundnut oil had been seized and, therefore, the power of confiscation was not exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-A of the Act. It is manifest from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that there was a contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized both the truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, and forwarded the same to him along with his report for taking action under S. 6-A of the Act. The contention of the Public Prosecutor before the Deputy Commissioner was that the seized truck and the groundnut oil were liable to be confiscated. The very fact that the seized groundnut oil was released to the respondent No. 4 on his furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 70, 000/- for the price of the consignment of the groundnut oil clearly shows that it had been seized. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the power of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Act was not exercisable for want of seizure 15. As to point No. (3), from the narration of facts above, it is amply clear that there was breach of the requirements of S. 6-B of the Act of the part of the Deputy Commissioner. The record shows that the Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the report of the Sub-Insector of Police mentioning the fact of contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and forwarding the seized truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, issued notice to the parties concerned under S. 6-B of the Act to show cause against their confiscation. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and filed a copy of the invoice together with a copy of the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner sent for the declaration in Form II as furnished to the Tahsildar which did not bear a date. He also gave hearing to the parties. That being so, the validity of the or of confiscation under S. 6-C cannot be challenged on the ground that the requirements of S. 6-B had not been fulfilled
1[ds]9. As to point No. (1), It is axiomatic that the power of confiscation of an essential commodity seized for contravention of an order issued under S. 3, is a discretionary power. The use of the word may, however, does not necessarily meant that the Deputy Commissioner cannot in the given circumstances of a particular case, direct the confiscation of the entire consignment of an essential commodity in relation to which there is a contravention of any of the orders issued under S. 3 of the Act. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the confiscation should be an of entire consignment or part of it, depending upon the nature of the contravention. The power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 6-A of the Act by the use of the word may, makes the power coupled with a public duty. Some times it may be in the public interest to direct confiscation of the entire consignment of an essential commodity when there is deliberate contravention when there is deliberate contravention of the provisions of an order issued under S. 3 of the Act10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be doubted, for a moment that the Deputy Commissioner acted in the public interest to direct confiscation of the entire consignment of the groundnut oil, as it was being transported from one place to another without furnishing the requisite declaration in Form II. All systems of control, supply and distribution of essential commodities would fail unless the various control orders issued by the Central Government under S. 3 of the Act in relation thereto are strictly observed. These control orders are issued under S. 3 when the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of essential commodities or for securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices etc. Sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order enjoin that the stock-holder shall make a declaration in Form II in relation to movement of edible oil, edible oil seeds and oil cakes, to the Tahsildar incharge of the taluka of the place from where such edible oil, edible oil seeds and oil cakes are transported before such edible oil, edible oil seeds or oil cakes leave the place. The whole purpose is to maintain a control over the stock of such essential commodities at a place with a view to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The requirements of sub-cls. (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order are clearly mandatory14. As to point No. (2), there is no warrant for the submission that there was nothing to show that the groundnut oil had been seized and, therefore, the power of confiscation was not exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-A of the Act. It is manifest from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that there was a contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized both the truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, and forwarded the same to him along with his report for taking action under S. 6-A of the Act. The contention of the Public Prosecutor before the Deputy Commissioner was that the seized truck and the groundnut oil were liable to be confiscated. The very fact that the seized groundnut oil was released to the respondent No. 4 on his furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 70, 000/- for the price of the consignment of the groundnut oil clearly shows that it had been seized. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the power of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Act was not exercisable for want of seizure15. As to point No. (3), from the narration of facts above, it is amply clear that there was breach of the requirements of S. 6-B of the Act of the part of the Deputy Commissioner. The record shows that the Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the report of the Sub-Insector of Police mentioning the fact of contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and forwarding the seized truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, issued notice to the parties concerned under S. 6-B of the Act to show cause against their confiscation. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and filed a copy of the invoice together with a copy of the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner sent for the declaration in Form II as furnished to the Tahsildar which did not bear a date. He also gave hearing to the parties. That being so, the validity of the or of confiscation under S. 6-C cannot be challenged on the ground that the requirements of S. 6-B had not been fulfilled
### Instruction:
Ascertain if the court will uphold (1) or dismiss (0) the appeal in the case proceeding, and then clarify this prediction by discussing critical sentences from the text.

### Input:
legal fiction, treats the owners to have control over the edible oil, edible oil seeds and cakes, in transit. The respondent No. 4, being the purchaser, also comes within the definition of stock-holder by reason of the said Explanation. There is nothing to show that the consignor had, reserved the jus-disponendi by the terms of the contract or appropriation and, therefore, the property in the goods passed to the respondent No. 4 on their delivery to a common carrier under S. 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 12. The allegation in the complaint is that 40 barrels of groundnut oil weighing 7, 200 kg. were being transported by the truck bearing No. MHL 2675 without furnishing the requisite declaration in Form II and it was intercepted at the Hukeri cheek-post by the Sub-Inspector of Police. In response to a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-B of the Act, the respondent No. 4 produced before him the documents of title in relation to the goods. From these documents, it is clear that the consignor was Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, Kampli and the consignee was Messers Anant Oil Mills, Nippani and that the truck was laden with the consignment. These facts were also borne out by the particulars furnished in the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 13. It appears from these documents that Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, after despatching the consignment, purported to furnish the declaration in Form II to the Tahsildar, Hospet, which was received by him on 7-6-1977, requesting for the release of the groundnut oil in question. The respondent No. 4 contended before the Deputy Commissioner that there was substantial compliance of the requirements of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and, therefore, the Seized groundnut oil be released; but he rejected the contention on the ground that the declaration in Form II was required to be filed before the specified officer before the goods left the place. The Deputy Commissioner requisitioned the form produced before the Tahsildar, but it did not bear any date. He was of the view that the declaration was not sent by registered post on 6-6-1977 as asserted, but had apparently been handed over in the Taluka Office and acknowledgment obtained for the same. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the requirement of law was that the declaration in Form II had to be produced at every check-post during transit, and this was not done. The driver of the truck did not have a copy of the declaration in Form II, but only the declaration in Form 39 which could not be taken to be in compliance of law. Obviously, the stock-holder, Sri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, after despatching the consignment of groundnut oil, purported to furnish the declaration in Form II. This was in complete breach of the requirements of sub-cls. (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, held that the respondents having contravened the provisions of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order, the seized truck along with the entire consignment of the groundnut oil was liable to be confiscated under S. 6-A of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, rightly confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 6-A of the Act as it was unassailable. At no point of time was there a contention raised that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to exercise his discretion as to the quantity of the groundnut oil liable to be seized. It is now too late in the day to urge the point before this Court 14. As to point No. (2), there is no warrant for the submission that there was nothing to show that the groundnut oil had been seized and, therefore, the power of confiscation was not exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-A of the Act. It is manifest from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that there was a contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized both the truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, and forwarded the same to him along with his report for taking action under S. 6-A of the Act. The contention of the Public Prosecutor before the Deputy Commissioner was that the seized truck and the groundnut oil were liable to be confiscated. The very fact that the seized groundnut oil was released to the respondent No. 4 on his furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 70, 000/- for the price of the consignment of the groundnut oil clearly shows that it had been seized. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the power of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Act was not exercisable for want of seizure 15. As to point No. (3), from the narration of facts above, it is amply clear that there was breach of the requirements of S. 6-B of the Act of the part of the Deputy Commissioner. The record shows that the Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the report of the Sub-Insector of Police mentioning the fact of contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and forwarding the seized truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, issued notice to the parties concerned under S. 6-B of the Act to show cause against their confiscation. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and filed a copy of the invoice together with a copy of the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner sent for the declaration in Form II as furnished to the Tahsildar which did not bear a date. He also gave hearing to the parties. That being so, the validity of the or of confiscation under S. 6-C cannot be challenged on the ground that the requirements of S. 6-B had not been fulfilled

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
9. As to point No. (1), It is axiomatic that the power of confiscation of an essential commodity seized for contravention of an order issued under S. 3, is a discretionary power. The use of the word may, however, does not necessarily meant that the Deputy Commissioner cannot in the given circumstances of a particular case, direct the confiscation of the entire consignment of an essential commodity in relation to which there is a contravention of any of the orders issued under S. 3 of the Act. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the confiscation should be an of entire consignment or part of it, depending upon the nature of the contravention. The power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 6-A of the Act by the use of the word may, makes the power coupled with a public duty. Some times it may be in the public interest to direct confiscation of the entire consignment of an essential commodity when there is deliberate contravention when there is deliberate contravention of the provisions of an order issued under S. 3 of the Act10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be doubted, for a moment that the Deputy Commissioner acted in the public interest to direct confiscation of the entire consignment of the groundnut oil, as it was being transported from one place to another without furnishing the requisite declaration in Form II. All systems of control, supply and distribution of essential commodities would fail unless the various control orders issued by the Central Government under S. 3 of the Act in relation thereto are strictly observed. These control orders are issued under S. 3 when the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of essential commodities or for securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices etc. Sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order enjoin that the stock-holder shall make a declaration in Form II in relation to movement of edible oil, edible oil seeds and oil cakes, to the Tahsildar incharge of the taluka of the place from where such edible oil, edible oil seeds and oil cakes are transported before such edible oil, edible oil seeds or oil cakes leave the place. The whole purpose is to maintain a control over the stock of such essential commodities at a place with a view to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The requirements of sub-cls. (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order are clearly mandatory14. As to point No. (2), there is no warrant for the submission that there was nothing to show that the groundnut oil had been seized and, therefore, the power of confiscation was not exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under section 6-A of the Act. It is manifest from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that there was a contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized both the truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, and forwarded the same to him along with his report for taking action under S. 6-A of the Act. The contention of the Public Prosecutor before the Deputy Commissioner was that the seized truck and the groundnut oil were liable to be confiscated. The very fact that the seized groundnut oil was released to the respondent No. 4 on his furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 70, 000/- for the price of the consignment of the groundnut oil clearly shows that it had been seized. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the power of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Act was not exercisable for want of seizure15. As to point No. (3), from the narration of facts above, it is amply clear that there was breach of the requirements of S. 6-B of the Act of the part of the Deputy Commissioner. The record shows that the Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the report of the Sub-Insector of Police mentioning the fact of contravention of sub-clauses (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order and forwarding the seized truck and the consignment of groundnut oil, issued notice to the parties concerned under S. 6-B of the Act to show cause against their confiscation. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and filed a copy of the invoice together with a copy of the declaration in Form 39 under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner sent for the declaration in Form II as furnished to the Tahsildar which did not bear a date. He also gave hearing to the parties. That being so, the validity of the or of confiscation under S. 6-C cannot be challenged on the ground that the requirements of S. 6-B had not been fulfilled
