The absence of explicit mention of Control Order violations in a confiscation notice does not invalidate enforcement actions under the Essential Commodities Act.

ORDER :

1. Present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred challenging the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which, inter alia, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist-applicant and confirmed the order dated 24.9.2014 passed by the Additional Collector and District Supply Officer, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application is that the revisionist applicant is the authorised distributor of Indian Oil Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘IOCL’) and was issue retail licence for dealing with the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Products. A surprise inspection was carried out at the premises of the applicant by the authorities on 1.10.2013. The inspection was carried out in presence of panchas and it was noticed that there was little discrepancy with regard to stock of LPG bottles. It was further found that total 340 LPG bottles weighing around 14.2 kg each was not found in sealed condition at the godown and that they were defective. Therefore, seizure order was passed and statements were recorded. Show-cause notice was issued to the applicant on 5.5.2014 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Additional Collector asking for response as to why the stock should not be confiscated. The reply was given by the applicant and after considering material on record, passed an order of confiscation of 50% of the stock i.e. 168 bottles amounting to the tune of Rs.69,552/-.

3. Being aggrieved by confiscation order dated 24.9.2014, the applicant preferred appeal under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 353 of 2014. The City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad while perusing the material on record and taking into consideration the averments made by the applicant, was pleased to dismiss the appeal by way of impugned order dated 11.12.2015, which has resulted into filing of the present revision application.

4. I have heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

5. Contention raised by Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant is that in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order, there is no reflection with regard to breach of any particular provisions of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 or the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. In absence of specific violation of particular provisions of the Control Order, the show-cause notice as well as the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, suffered from non-application of mind and was required to be quashed. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant further submitted that when there was no breach of the Control Order, then the provisions of Essential Commodities Act could not have been applied by the Additional Collector. This aspect is totally ignored by the appellate Court.

6. The second submitted by Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant is that the applicant had produced on record letter dated 30.7.2014 written by Principal i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the authorities i.e. the Additional Collector wherein it is stated that the Principal has certified that total 460 bottles of cylinders were defective and were supplied on 11^th and 14^th November, 2013. When such aspect has been categorically accepted by the Principal, then the applicant being an Agent, should not be made to suffer and the letter dated 30.7.2014 is not taken into consideration by the appellate Court or the Additional Collector.