( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by a partnership firm trading in the name and style of Swastik Oil Industries which held a licence under the Gujarat Groundnut Dealers Licensing Order 1966 to carry on business in groundnut oil. The pre- mises of the firm were inspected on 10th July 1976 by the District Supply Officer Kaira and 397 tins of ground-nut oil were seized and internecine thereof was given to the Collector of Kaira immediately. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner firm to show cause why these tins of ground-nut oil should not be confiscated to the State. In the show cause notice 9 grounds were set out for confiscation of the ground-nut oil tins to which the petitioner sent replies on 16th September 1976 and 17th September 1976 The petitioner was then given an opportunity of personal hearing on 4th October 1976 and upon a consideration of the material placed before him the Collector of Kaira came to the conclusion that the explanations furnished by the petitioner ground-wise could not be accepted. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner firm had committed grave irregularities and breaches of the conditions of the licence as well as the provisions of the Order under which the licence was issued and therefore he directed the confiscation of 100 tins out of the total number of 397 tins seized on 10th July 1976 Against this order passed by the Collector of Kaira the petitioner-firm filed an Appeal No. 144/76 in the court of Sessions Judge Kaira at Nadiad. That appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kaira at Nadiad on 15th December 1976 The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that except for ground No. 2 set out in the show cause notice the petitioner- firm had not been guilty of any breach in respect of the remaining grounds. He came to the conclusion that cl. (11) of the Licensing Order had been contravened but such contravention was not deliberate as it arose out of a mere bona fide misconception regarding the true content of cl. (11) of the said Licensing Order. He took into consideration the fact that in the past also the business premises of the petitioner-firm had been inspected from time to time and even though no separate register of transactions in ground-nut oil with bulk consumers showing therein the names addresses and such other particulars as the Licensing Order may specify was maintained no note thereof was taken and the petitioner-firm was not directed on those occasions to maintain such a register. The learned Additional Sessions Judge expressed himself on this point as under:it is pertinent to note that the business carried on by the appellant was inspected from time to time in the past by the authorities concerned. At that time the appellant was not told about the imperative need to maintain separate registers as required by cl. 11. It appears that the appellant was belabouring under a bona fide impression that as it has maintained a stock register and as such and every transaction entered into by it has been supported by separate bills showing therein the names address etc. it has not to maintain any separate list. It appears that this erroneous but bona fide belief became strong in view of the fact that it was never told at the time of inspections which were made in the past before 10-7-76 that it has committed a breach by not maintaining the registers as required by cl. 11. It is therefore not possible to attribute any criminal intention to the appellant so far as this particular breach is concerned. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore came to the conclusion that clause 11 of the Licensing Order was contravened but such contravention was merely a technical bona fide contravention and not a contravention wilfully and deliberately made with a view to earning profit. Taking cue from the case of M. Sannappa v. State of Mysore 1970 Cri. Law Journal 929 the learned A