STATE OF KARNATAKA versus KRISHNA BHIMA WALVAKAR & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 07-05-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

829 
A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
KRISHNA BHIMA WALVAKAR & ANR. 
May 7, 1981 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND 
BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1957-Sections 6A, 6B & 6C-Scope of-Consign-
ment moved on a Sunday-Whether exonerates the consignee from making the 
requisite declaration before the specified authority. 
Interpretation-Power coupled with public duty-Whether use of word 'may' 
in an order makes the power discretionary. 
Clause 3(2)(a) of the Edible Oil, Edible Oil Seeds and Oil Cakes (Declaration 
B 
c 
of Stocks) Order, 1976 enjoins that before a consignment of oil leaves a place a 
D 
stock holder who transports edible-oils shall make a declaration in Form II to 
the specified officer of the place (in this case the Tehsildar of the) Taluk from 
where such edible oils are transported. Clause (b) enjoins that the declaration 
shall be shown at every check post on the route immediately after arrival there. 
A police officer seized in transit a truck carrying a large quantity of ground-
nut oil on the ground that the requisite declaration in Form II had not been fur-
nished to the Tehsildar of the place of despatch of the consignment. 
E 
The Deputy Commissioner, after issuing a notice to the respondent under 
section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, released the truck and the 
consignment on taking from him an indemnity bond and a bank guarantee 
towards the price of oil. The respondent however produced before the Deputy 
Commissioner a copy of the invoice issued by the seller and a declaration in 
Form 39 prescribed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. 
The Deputy Commissioner ordered confiscation of the truck and the oil on 
the view that the respondent had contravened the provisions of clause 3(2) (a) 
and (b) of the Order. On appeal the Sessions Judge affirmed this order. 
A single Judge of the High Court in revision held that there was no con-
travention of the requirement of the Order because the day on which the goods 
were despatched being a Sunday, it was impossible for the respondent to deliver 
on that day to Tehsildar the declaration in Form II and that the law would not 
expect a citizen to do the impossible. 
F 
G 
The respondent in the State's appeal to this Court contended that: (I) the 
'~onfiscation of the entire consignment was arbitrary and excessive in that the use 
H 
of the word "may" in section 6A made exercise of that power discretionary; (2) 
Bince there was nothing to show that the goods had been seized, the power of 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
confiscation under section 6A had not been properly exercised and (3) the order 
of confiscation was a nullity in that the Deputy Commissioner had not issued a 
proper show cause notice under section 6B of the Act. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Allowing the State's appeal 
HELD : l (a) The word '·may" used in section 6A does not mean that 
the Deputy Corn.missioner could not order confiscation of the entire consignment 
of an essential commodity l where he found contravention of any of the orders 
issued under section 3 of the Act. The power conferred on the Deputy Com-
missioner under section 6A is a power coupled with public duty. [834 H] 
(b) In difecting confiscation of the entire consignment which was being 
transported without furnishing the declaration I in Form II the Deputy Com-
missioner acted in public interest. The whole purpose of the control order was 
to maintain control over the stock of essential commodities at a place with a view 
to securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The require· 
rnents of clause 3 (2) (a) and (b) are mandatory. [835 C-Dl 
(c) "Stock bolder" as defined in the Order includes the purchaser of oil 
who is in possession or control thereof. By a legal fiction the explanation treats 
the owner to have control over the oil in transit. Respondent 4 being the pur-
chaser fell within the definition of "stock holder". Moreover there was 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 
respondent 4 (purcha£er) on delivery to a common carrier under section 25 of the 
Sale of Goods Act, 1930. [836 A-Bl 
(d) The peputy Commissioner was right in holding that the declaration 
in Form II was required to be filed before the specified officer before the goods 
left a place and that the declaration should be produced at every check post in

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