9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the second proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 regarding the levy of fine in lieu of confiscation. 2. Determining whether the fine should be based on the market value of the confiscated vehicle or the market price of the essential commodity carried by the vehicle. Issue 1: Interpretation of the Second Proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act: The judgment delves into the interpretation of the second proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, which deals with the confiscation of essential commodities in contravention of orders. The proviso limits the recovery of fines to the market price for releasing vehicles sought to be confiscated. The court emphasizes that the objective of the Act is to deter illegal dealings in essential commodities and prevent vehicle owners from aiding such activities. The Act empowers the Central Government to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities. Sections 6A to 6D outline the seizure, confiscation, and appeal processes regarding contraventions. The court highlights that the fine in lieu of confiscation should not exceed the market price of the vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential commodity carried by the vehicle. Issue 2: Determining the Basis for Calculating the Fine in Lieu of Confiscation: The court addresses the ambiguity in the Act regarding whether the fine should be based on the market value of the confiscated vehicle or the market price of the essential commodity carried by the vehicle. It concludes that the measure of the fine should be linked to the market price of the vehicle, not the seized essential commodity. This interpretation aligns with the Act's scheme, which allows for the forfeiture of both essential commodities and vehicles involved in contraventions. The judgment references a similar provision in the Customs Act, highlighting the distinction between calculating fines based on the seized goods versus the vehicle's market price. The court clarifies that the fine amount in lieu of confiscation should not exceed the market price of the vehicle at the relevant date, determined at the competent authority's discretion based on the case's circumstances. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarifies the interpretation of the second proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, emphasizing that fines in lieu of confiscation should be based on the market price of the confiscated vehicle, not the essential commodity carried. The decision provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and highlights the importance of aligning the fine amount with the vehicle's market value to deter illegal activities and ensure equitable enforcement of the law.
|
