MUNSHI RAM RAM NIW ASversusCOLLECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AND ORS

A                          MUNSHI RAM RAM NIWAS
                                            v.
    COLLECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

                                SEPTEMBER 17, 19<Jl

B      [M.H.KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M.FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

          Delhi Sugar Dealers Lice11sing Order, 1963-Clause 2 (f) (i)-
    Kha11dsari (Sugar) kept i11 co11trave11tio11 of Sugar Licensing Order i.e. wit/rout
    licence--Seizure of 80 bags of sugar of three varieties-Samples take11 from
C   three varieties of sugar from three bags out of the entire seized lot of 80
    bags-,.Whether represe11tath•e sample&-A.11alyst Report-Samples co11tainii1g
    more than 90% sucrose confiscation of entire stock of sugar-Validity of
    confiscation order.
          Under the provisions of Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1963,
D   a person was entitled to keep only upto a maximum of 10 quintals of sugar
    without licence and sugar means any form of sugar including Khandsari
    sugar contai~ing mo~"e than 90% of Sucrose.
           The appellant's business premises were raided and 80 bags of sugar
    viz. 53 bags of Khandsari, 18 bags of Khandsari (dust) and 9 bags of
    Khandsari (sulphur) were seized in his presence. Two samples each from
E   all the three varieties of Khandsari were taken and three samples of sugar
    were sent for analysis to the public analyst, who reported that the
    samples contained sucrose 93.5%, 94.2% and 97.16% respectively. The
    Collector passed an order confiscating the entire seized stock of sugar as
    the same was kept without any licence. Against the order of the Collector,
    the appellant filed an appeal before the Lt.· Governor, Delhi which was
F   dismis.sed~ The writ petition filed against the order of Lt. Governor was
    dismissed in limine by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was
    contended on behalf of the appellant that (a) only·two samples each out of
    the three bags were taken from the entire lot of Khandsari and this could
    at the most show that only three quintals of Khandsari was 'sugar' and
    the same being less than 10 qtls. , there was no violation of the Licensing
    Order; (b) it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appel-
G   lant was in possession of more than 10 quintals of sugar and this could
    only be done by taking samples from all the bags of Khandsari if it wanted
    to show that other bags of Khandsari also contained more than 90% of
    sucrose; (c) the possibility cannot be excluded that those bags from whic~
    samples were not taken, did not contain sucrose more than 90%.
           Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
H                                           138
                    MUNSHI RAM v. COLLECTOR [ KASUWAL, J.)                     139

            HELD: A large quantity of 80 quintals of Khandsari was found in            A
     the appellant's premises, whereas only 10 quintals of sugar was allowed te
     be kept without licence. At the time of seizure of the goods two samples
     each were taken separately from three different varieties of Khandsari at
     the instance of the appellant. It was proved by the public analyst that all
     tbe three samples contained sucrose more than 90%. It was not disputed
     by the appellant at the time of taking samples or thereafter that th~             B
     sa~ples taken would not represent the correct quantity of sucro5e in
     those bags of Khandsari from which samples were not taken. In his writ·
     ten reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Collector ~o such objec·
     tion was raised by the appellant. In the circumstances of the case if the
     Collector was satisfied that 80 quintals of sugar was found in the
     appellant's premises without licence, it cannot be held that the order of         C
     confiscation passed by the Collector was arbitrary ol;' based on no
     material. It was quite reasonable for the Collector to hold that there was
     more than 10 quintais of Kh~ndsari having more than 90'fo sucrose and
     this violated the Sugar Licensing Order. Therefore, there was sufficient
     justification for him to pass the order of confiscation. Accordingly, the order
     of confiscation passed by the Collector is maintained. [142 C, 141 F-H,           D
-+   142A-C, D]
           Suraj Bha11 Sharad Kumar v. Delhi Administration Criminal Revision
     No. 104 of 1980 decided on 25th September, 1980 by Delhi High Court,
     distinguished.

           2. In the instant case more than 10 y~rs have already elapsed to the E
     alleged commission of the offence. Therefore, it would be against the
     interests of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the '
     case. Accordingly, it is directed that the criminal proceedings launched
     and pending against the appellant should be dropped. [142 E]

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No2929 of                      F
     1986.
              From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1985. of the Delhi High
     Court in C.W.P. No. 3120of1985.
             K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde and Mrs. Sushila for the Appellant.
                                                                                       G
             G.Venkatesh Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
     order of the High Court of Delhi dated 20th December, 1985 dismissing in          H
     140.               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A limine the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Ll.
    Governor, Delhi dated 8th November, 1985. This Court by order dated
    25th August, 1986 granted special leave limited to the following question.
                "One of the questions raised by the learned counsel before us
                is whether the samples taken from 3 out of 80 bags of
                Khandsari could be treated as representative samples. He has
B               cited before us a judgment of the High Court where it has been
                held that they cannot be so treated. We grant special leave
                limited to the question stated above. We find no force in other
                submissions".                                              ·
    In order to decide the above question we would mention facts in brief .
    necessary in this regard.
c
        In a raid in the business premises of the appellant on 28th February,
  1980, the following bags of Khandsari (sugar) were seized in the presence
  of Shri Ram Niwas, sole proprietor of the firm.
                    Khandsari                                  53 bags
                    Khandsari (dust)                           18 bags
D                   Khandsari (sulphur)                        9bags

                          Total                                   80 bags
         Two samples each from all the three varieties of Khandsari were
  taken and three samples of sugar were sent for analysis to the public
  analyst. The public analyst reported that the samples of sugar contained
E Sucrose-- 93.5%, 94.2% and 97.16% respectively. The Collector passed
  an order confiscating the entire goods as the same were kept in contraven-
  tion of the provisions of Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (in
  short the 'Licensing Order'). It is not necessary to mention the details of
  this order of confiscation because the matter had gone upto the High
  Court and the case was ultimately remanded by the High Court of Delhi
F by order dated 27th March, 1984. The High Court directed the Collector
  for denovo determination of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Es-
  sential Commodities Act, 1955, in accordance with law. The Collector
  (North) after remand gave a fresh show cause notice to the appellant on 21st
  May, 1984 setting forth the brief sequence of the proceedings and asking him
  to show cause as to why the entire stock of 80 bags of sugar seized in the case,
G be not confiscated to the State? The appellant appeared and filed a written
  reply to the show cause notice. The case was then heard at length and the
  Collector again passed an order confiscating the entire seized stock of 80 quin~
  tals of sugar. An appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the
  U. Govemor,Delhi by order dated 8th November, 1985.. A writ petition filed
  against the order ofthe Lt. Governor was dismissed in limine by the High Court
H by order dated 20th D_ecember, 1985. Hence this appeal.
                   MUNSHI RAM v. COLLECTOR [ KASLIWAL, J.)                    141

           Clause 2 (t) (i) of the Licensing Order defines sugar as under.           A
         "Sugar means any form of sugar including Khandsari sugar contain-
    ing more than 90% of Sucrose."

           Under the Licensing Order a person was entitled to keep only upto a
     maximum of 10 quintals of sugar, without a licence. Admittedly the appel-       B
     lant was not having any licence.                    ·

             It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in order to prove
      that Khandsari was sugar under the Licensing Order, it was necessary to
      prove that it contained more than 90% of Sucrose. It was submitted that
      the prosecution only took two samples each out of the three bags from
    · the entire lot of 80 bags of Khandsari and this could at the most show         C
      that only 3 quintals of Khandsari was sugar and the same being less than
      10 quintals, there was no violation of the Licensing Order. It was sub-
      mitted that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant
      was in possession of more than 10 quintals of sugar and this could only
      be done by taking samples from all the bags of Khandsari if it wanted to
      show that other bags of Khandsari also contained mor_e than 90% bags of        D
      Sucrose. It was also submitted that the possibility cannot be excluded that
     ·those bags from which samples were not taken, did not contain Sucrose
i     more than 90%. It was argued that the burden lay on the prosecution to
      prove that more than 10 quintals of sugar was found in the premises and
      then alone any order of confiscation could have been passed. In support
      of the above contention reliance was placed on a judgment of learned           E
      Single Judge of Delhi High Comt in Suraj Bhan Sharad Kumar v. Delhi Ad-
      ministration (Crl Revision No. 104 of 1980 decided on 25th September, 1980).

            In the facts and circumstances of the present case the contention
    raised on behalf of the appellant has no force. The admitted facts of the
    car;0 ·are that at the time of seizure of the goods Shri Ram Niwas was           F
    present and the samples were taken in his presence. Two samples each
    were taken separately from three different varieties of Khandsari at the
    instance of Shri Ram Niwas himself. It was proved by the public analyst
    that all the three samples contained Sucrose more than 90%. It was
    nowhere disputed nor suggested by Shri Ram Niwas at the time of taking
    samples or thereafter that the samples taken would not represent the cor-        G
    rect quantity of Sucrose in those bags of Khandsari from which samples
    were not taken. Shri Rain Niwas had filed a reply in writing, to show
    cause notice, but in such reply also. no objection was taken as sought to
    be raised now. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above if the
    Collector was satisfied that 80 quintals of sugar were found in the premises
    without licence, it cannot be said th_at the order of confiscation passed by     H
    142                SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A the Collector was arbitrary or based on no material. The decision of the
    learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Suraj Bhan Sharad Kumar v.          .~
    Delhi Administration (supra) is totally distinguishable as in that case the
    dealer was having licence and the prosecution failed to prove that he was
    in possession of more than 1000 quintals of sugar. In the case in hand
    before us the facts are entirely different.
B
          As already mentioned above only two samples each were taken from
    the three varieties, and all the three samples were found to contain more
    than 90% Sucrose. A large quantity of 80 quintals of Khandsari was found
    in the premises, whereas only 10 quintals of sugar was allowed to be kept       x·
    without licence. Thus it was quite reasonable for the collector to hold
C   that there were more than 10 quintals of Khandsari having more than 90%
    Sucrose and this violated the Licensing Order.

           Thus in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case we are fully
    satisfied that the Collector had enough material for .his satisfaction that
    there was violation of the Licensing Order and there was sufficient jus-
D   tification for him to pass the order of confiscation. The order of confis-
    cation passed by the Collector is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

           During the course of arguments learned c0unsel for the appellant
    submitted that though a criminal prosecution is pending against the ap-
    pellant Ram Niwas but no effective progress has been made i_n the case
    except filing of challan. It appears to us that the State is not serious in
E   pursuing the criminal proceedings and even otherwise more than 10 years
    have already elapsed to the alleged commission of the offence. It would
    be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceed-
    ings in the case. We, therefore, direct to drop the criminal proceedings
    launched and pending against the appellant Shri Ram Niwas in the present
    matter.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal dismissed.