MUNSHI RAM RAM NIW AS versus COLLECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 17-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNSHI RAM RAM NIW AS 
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%. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
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. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.