IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a valid notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for proposed action of confiscation, and the necessity of grounds for such proposed action.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 – State.

2. This Revision Application is filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj- Kachchh dated 30.01.2018 whereby the learned District Magistrate ordered to confiscate 10% of the value of total products seized to the tune of Rs.4,34,024/-, which was confirmed by the appellate court being Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj vide order dated 21.01.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2018.

3. Heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant as also Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1 – State.

4. As coming out from the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh pursuant to an application made by the applicant for renewal of his License No.157 of 2009, it was found that from trading products, there is breach of Clause – 3(3) and 3(4) of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobile) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2000’). The Investigating Unit of supply office was directed to undertake inspection and report. Pursuant thereto, Mamlatdar, Gandhidham in company with Chief Inspector of Supply and Deputy Collector (Supply) carried out search on 20.09.2017 at the premises of the applicant wherein it was found that the applicant has failed to submit quarterly End Use Certificate from the consumers to whom he sells the articles for which he is licensed, as provided under Clause 3(3) of ‘the Order, 2000’.

4.1. It was further found that the applicant did not produce End Use Certificate of 63 firms, of Solvent C-9 totalling to 1487.589 Metric Tons for a period from January, 2015 to December, 2016. Similarly the applicant failed to produce End Use Certificate of 178 firms relating to HEXANE of total 6895.505 Metric Ton again from January 2015 to December, 2016. It is further found that the applicant purchased Solvent C-9 from Kunjal Synergy Pvt. Ltd, an importer, who did not possess license for Solvent C-9 and despite the applicant purchased the stock from him through bond transfer, the said purchase was unauthorized and thereby he entered into unauthorized sale thereof.

4.2. For the aforesaid four illegalities, the aforesaid stock came to be seized to the extent of 10% by the Mamlatdar and custody thereof was handed over to the applicant injuncting him to maintain it in a good condition and not to sell it or shift it or in any way dispose it of. As mentioned in the order, since there was breach found of Clause 3(3) and 3(4) of ‘the Order, 2000’ and breach of condition no.10(12) of the license, the applicant was issued show-cause notice dated 03.10.2017 why the stock seized should not be confiscated fully or in part under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as also since there was breach of conditions of license, why the application for renewal thereof should not be consigned to file and license should not be cancelled. As further recorded in it, the applicant was issued notices to remain present before the District Magistrate for the purpose of hearing and production of necessary documents. Thereafter, it was adjourned time to time and the applicant also filed his written representation explaining the deficiencies mentioned hereinabove. Considering the written representation made by the applicant and according to the District Magistrate in the show cause notice, breach of ‘the Order, 2000’ as also condition of license was found by the District Magistrate and order as aforesaid confiscating the value of 10% seized goods to the extent of Rs.4,34,024/- came to be passed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate, the applicant preferred