1991 (9) TMI 161 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the samples taken from 3 out of 80 bags of Khandsari could be treated as representative samples? Held that - The admitted facts of the case are that at the time of seizure of the goods Shri Ram Niwas was 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 correct quantity of Sucrose in those bags of Khandsari from which samples were not taken. If the Collector was satisfied that 80 quintals of sugar were found in the premises without licence it cannot be said that the order of confiscation passed by the Collector was arbitrary or based on no material. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the samples taken from the bags of Khandsari were representative samples.
2. Whether the order of confiscation passed by the Collector was justified under the Licensing Order.
3. Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be dropped.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case revolved around the question of whether the samples taken from the bags of Khandsari were representative samples. The appellant argued that only two samples each from three bags out of a total of 80 bags were taken, and this was insufficient to prove that the entire stock contained more than 90% Sucrose. However, the court found that the samples were taken in the presence of the proprietor, and the public analyst confirmed that all three samples contained more than 90% Sucrose. It was also noted that the appellant did not raise any objections at the time of sampling. The court distinguished a previous judgment where the circumstances were different, and upheld the Collector's decision that there were more than 10 quintals of Khandsari violating the Licensing Order.

Issue 2:
Regarding the justification of the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, it was established that 80 quintals of Khandsari were found in the premises, exceeding the limit allowed without a license. The Licensing Order defined sugar as containing more than 90% Sucrose, and the public analyst confirmed this in the samples taken. Therefore, the court concluded that the Collector had sufficient grounds to believe there was a violation of the Licensing Order, justifying the order of confiscation.

Issue 3:
Lastly, the court addressed the issue of the criminal proceedings against the appellant. It was noted that despite the pending prosecution, no significant progress had been made in the case over a period of more than 10 years. Considering the lack of progress and the time elapsed, the court deemed it against the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the court directed to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, dismissed the appeal, and directed to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellant due to the lack of progress and the extended period since the alleged offense.