1
M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan.
S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.921/08
Date of Order : 01.12.08
HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J.
Mr.Vineet Jain for the petitioners.
Mr.Vishnu Kachhawaha , Public Prosecutor.
The instant revision petition has been filed against the
order of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated17.06.08 by which he
has dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the District
Magistrate dated 20.04.05 , on the point of limitation.
Brief facts of the case are like that. It is alleged that on
05.11.04 the Enforcement Officer inspected the firm’s
premises and found some irregularities and illegalities with
regard to gas cylinders. In contravention of the Liquefied
Petroleum Gas ( Regulation of Supplies ) Order, 2000 , a case
under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955
( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was initiated and 33 gas
cylinders, which were found unauthorizedly in occupation and
2
were finally ordered to be forfeited . In this respect impugned
order dated 20.04.05 was passed . Against that, the petitioners
filed an appeal under section 6-A of the Act. It is revealed that
appeal was barred by limitation , therefore, an application
under section 5 of the Limitation Act, along with an affidavit in
support of the contentions, was also filed with appeal. It is
further revealed that the learned Sessions Judge, after
considering the point of limitation, registered the appeal
subject to objection on point of limitation vide order dated
18.07.05. Notices were issued. Thereafter, on hearing both
the sides, vide order dated 17.06.08 dismissed the appeal only
on the point of limitation, he has not considered the case on
merit. The Sessions Judge found that the delay in filing the
appeal was not satisfactorily explained. The said order is under
challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard both the parties.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge should
have decided this matter on merit but on the point of limitation
the learned Court has dismissed the appeal. It was stated that
3
on the point of limitation, a liberal view should have been taken
as the delay was found to be of only 14 days and in this respect
satisfactory reason has been assigned ,supported by an
affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners also assailed the
order on merit and it was submitted that the disputed cylinders
were of labourers. There was no contravention of said order
and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. A
request was made to allow the revision and quash the
impugned orders.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition
and supported the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
I have considered the rival submissions. The learned
Sessions Judge , without going in to the merit of the case, only
on the point of limitation, has dismissed the appeal. I have
perused the impugned order and the material available on
record. As per record, the delay of 14 days was found . In that
respect an application has been filed supported by an
affidavit. The reasons assigned was that due to non-
4
communication of order by counsel and administrative
exigencies, the delay has been caused. I consider that the
delay seems to be bona fide. Considering theses aspects, I am
of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge should have
condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on
merit. He has only decided it on the point of limitation.
Therefore, case is required to be remitted back for decision on
merit.
Considering all the submissions, the revision is partly
allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the case is
remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for deciding the
case on merit. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the delay
is condoned and the case is remanded for afresh hearing on
merit. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions
Judge, Jodhpur on 15.12.08.
(MANAK MOHTA), J.
l.george