SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 22-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1119 
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6289 of 2008) 
JANUARY 22, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Schedule Commodity Dealer 
(Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991-
Clause 11-Confiscation of paddy on account of violation of C 
clause 11-Legality of-Held: It was incumbent on the part 
of the transporter to carry documents mentioned in 91flUSe 11 
along with the consignment-Since the said docufl'lents were 
not carried along with the consignment, there was no illegality 
in the seizure and confiscation thereof.-Madhya Pradesh 
D 
Ess~ntial Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price control) 
Order, 1997-Clause 6(2). 
Words and phrases: Expression 'dealef'.-Meaning of -
In the context of Clause 2(e) of Madhya Pradesh Schedule E 
Commodity Dealer (Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) 
Order, 1991 and Clause 2(a) of Madhya Pradesh Essential 
Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price control) Order, 
1997-Discussed. 
Hundred bags of paddy transported by truck 
F 
belonging to petitioner no.2 were seized and thereafter 
in accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh 
· Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price 
control) Order, 1997, the seized paddy was confiscated. 
The confiscation order was upheld by the Sessions G . 
Judge and by the High Court . 
In Special Leave, it was contended by the petitioner 
that "dealer" in terms of clause 2(a) includes any person 
1119 
H 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 1 $.C.R. 
A dealing with any essential commodity included in the 
Madhya Pradesh Schedule Commodity Dealer (Licensing 
and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991 and in case 
dealing with only one commodity under the said Order 
at any time in quantity of mol'fil than 200 (two hundred) 
B quintals; that since the consignment in question 
comprised of only 100 quintals of paddy, the same did 
not attract the provisions of the Licensing Order, 1991, 
and thus the seizure and confiscation thereof, was wholly 
illegal and without any legal basis. 
c 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The definition of the expression "dealer" in 
the Madhya Pradesh Schedule Commodity Dealer 
(Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order, 1991 
D was not intended to include only such persons as were 
dealing in essential commodity in quantities of more than 
200 quintals. The intention of the legislature appears to 
have been that a dealer is a person who would be dealing 
in Scheduled food grains in quantities· more than 200 
E quintals at a time and was not confined to Individual 
transactions as in the instant case. It was Incumbent on 
the part of the transporter to carry along with the 
consignment the documents mentioned in Clause 11 of 
the Licensing Order, 1991, at least for the purpose of 
F identification, so that there was no possibility of the 
transported commodity being used for any purpose other 
than for what it was meant. Although, Clause 11 of the 
Licensing Order, 1991 does not stipulate that the 
documents indicated therein are to be carried along with 
G the consignment being transported, the documents 
concerned are safeguards against clandestine dealing in 
the food grains covered by the Licensing Order, 1991. The 
receipt or invoice as also the name of the customer and 
Licence Number, if any, the date of transaction and the 
H quantity of paddy sold, are documents which prove the 
SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR. v. STATE OF 1121 
CHHATIISGARH 
authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence 
A 
holder in respect of the said consignment. It was 
necessary for the said· documents to accompany the 
consignment of paddy which was being transported. 
[Paras. 11 and 13) [1125-F-G; 1126-A-B; 1126-D-F] 
2. The confiscation proceedings under clause 6(2) of 
the Control Order, 1997; were dependent on the 
proceedings relating to the alleged violation of Clause 11 
B 
of the Licensing Order, 1991. There is no reason to 
interfere with the order of the High Court. [Paras 14 and 
C 
15) [1126-F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.) ~o. 
6289 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.3.2008 of the High 
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 459 
D 
of 2002. 
;. Sa~rabh Suman Sinha, Prashant Mishra, Gaurav Agrawal 
for the Petitioners. 
' 
Aniruddha P. Mayee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 

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