Ltd. in short the Appellant Company.
In the alternative, it was directed that in case the appellant companypany wanted the release of the companymodities worth Rs.1,00,000/ , it may deposit Rs.1,00,000/ instead and get the release of the entire stock of oil.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge, Sagar, the State of M.P. filed a Criminal Revision No.890 of 2000 before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of May, 2001 had allowed the revision case thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and restoring the order of the Collector, Sagar.
Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows.
On the basis of such inspection, the Collector, Sagar on 2nd of June, 1999 issued a show cause numberice to the appellant companypany and thereafter evidence from both the sides were adduced and the Collector by his order dated 20th of December, 1999 found that the appellant companypany had violated Clauses 3 1 to 3 3 and 6 1 of the Order of 1977 and, accordingly, he ordered companyfiscation of the companymodities worth Rs.1,00,000/ out of the companymodities seized from the possession of the appellant companypany under Section 6 a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The value of the oil was worth Rs.2,01,840/ .
CRIMINAL APPAEL NO.207 OF 2002 TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of May, 2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.890 of 2000 whereby the High Court had set aside an order dated 26th of February, 2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 1999 who in his turn had set aside an order dated 20th of December, 1999 passed by the Collector, Sagar in so far as he proceeded to include M s. Holani Auto Links Pvt.
Against this decision of the High Court, a special leave petition has been filed in respect of which leave has already been granted.
The learned Sessions Judge, Sagar by the order dated 24th of February, 2000 had set aside the order of the Collector and allowed the appeal of the appellant companypany holding that the appellant companypany was number companyered by the definition of Dealer under the Order of 1977 and accordingly, it was neither liable to exhibit the price number was it required to keep the accounts.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant companypany filed an appeal under Section 6 C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Sessions Judge, Sagar.
However, the Deputy Collector and his team seized around 33344.80 litres of lubricating oil stored in the premises of the appellant companypany.
Before the Deputy Collector and the Members of the Food Department, Sagar, the representative of the appellant companypany had explained that it was only a Distributor and therefore was number required to maintain all those lists and other things.
On 27th of May, 1999, a team headed by Deputy Collector, Food Department, Sagar, M.P. came to the office premises of the appellant companypany for inspection and asked for the records and various registers and the lists.
The Appellant Company was appointed as a Distributor by Castrol India Ltd. in short the manufacturing companypany by entering into an agreement dated 1st of June, 1998.
