The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the relevance of the permit granted by the Municipal Corporation under Sec. 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in justifying confiscation.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dtd. 26/4/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2013, is assailed in both the Revision Applications, they are taken up for determination by this common order.

2. Mr. Sohrab Abdul Khalique Shaikh deals in the business of purchasing of reclain oil and other oils under the name and style of M/s. Azad Lubrico (hereinafter referred to as 'the Applicant'). The Applicant claims to have possessed requisite and valid license for the said business. On 27/1/2011, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, CID (Sales Tax Division) conducted a raid at the premises of the Applicant situated at Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai and seized the goods, including 52000 liters of black oil and 8000 kg. grease. The Applicant came to be arraigned in C.R.No.37 of 2011 registered with Vakola Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 3, 7(2) and 8(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Lubricating Oil and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987, Ss. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The Respondent No.1 - Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies issued Show Cause Notices dtd. 2/5/2012 and 16/5/2012 to the Applicant under Sec. 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Eventually, on 5/2/2013 the Respondent No.1 passed an order directing confiscation of 52000 black oil and 8000 kgs grease, alleged to be adulterated, the sale thereof and credit of the sale proceeds with the State.

4. Being aggrieved, the Applicant preferred an Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2013. By the Impugned judgment and order dtd. 26/4/2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to partly allow the Appeal, inter alia, holding that the Applicant had a permit to possess/store only 10000 liters of oil and 2000 kgs of grease and yet the Applicant was found in possession of huge quantity of black oil and grease, far in excess of the permit. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority to the extent of the permit i.e. 10000 liters of lubricating oil and 2000 kgs of grease and affirmed the order to the extent of the excess quantity i.e. 42000 black oil and 6000 kgs of grease. Being further aggrieved, the Applicant is in revision.

5. The principal ground on which the impugned order is assailed is that there is no contravention of any order passed under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is a jurisdictional condition for confiscation of the essential commodity by the Competent Authority by invoking the power under Sec. 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In fact, the black oil is not an 'essential commodity' within the meaning of Sec. 2-A of the said Act.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, according to the Applicant, misdirected herself in upholding the order of confiscation on the premise that the storage was in excess of the permit granted by the Municipal Corporation under Sec. 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which in any event would not furnish justification for confiscation under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the State of Maharashtra has also filed Criminal Revision Application No.521 of 2018, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the Applicant was found in possession of the commodity without permit and license. Having recorded such a finding, according to the State, it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to interfere with the order of confiscation passed by the Competent Authority to the extent the Applicant allegedly had a permit.

8. I have heard Mr. Anand, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Malh