The court upheld the confiscation of goods for violating licensing conditions, emphasizing the applicant's failure to substantiate claims made post-proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)

By way of present revision application a challenge is made to order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2002 filed by the present revisionist applicant and the other challenge is to order dated 12.09.20222 passed by the District Supply Officer in Case No. 32 of 2002, which inter alia directed confiscation of goods for value of Rs.81,000/- lying in the godown of revisionist applicant.

2. The brief facts resulting in filing of the present application is that on 15.04.2002, Additional Mamlatdar, Rajkot City carried out inspection of petrol pump of the applicant and it was observed during the inspection that the revisionist applicant had the custody of 30 barrels of used oil along with Bill No. 2. The revisionist applicant had license of petrol and diesel under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration), Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Order, 1981”). Therefore, the merchandise of 30 barrels of used oil was beyond the conditions of the license given to the present revisionist applicant and in view of the same, a show- cause notice dated 16.08.2002 was issued to the applicant by the District Supply Officer to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated.

2.1. Pursuant to the show cause notice, reply was given by the applicant on 27.08.2002 contending that the goods were received from one Mr. Chunilal K. Vora of Bhavnagar City who is in the business of empty barrel, refined oil, lubricating oil and grease merchandise. The goods were kept in the safe custody on behalf of Mr. Chunilal K. Vora. On basis of such defence, reply was given to the show cause notice issued to the revisionist applicant. Prior to issuance of show cause notice, the goods which were seized from the premises of the present revisionist applicant were sent for FSL, wherein it was revealed that the oil contained ingredients of ‘Hydrocarbon’. Therefore, according to the authorities, there was a breach of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998.

2.2. In view of the show cause notice issued to the revisionist applicant and the reply given on 27.08.2002, the District Supply Officer passed confiscation order dated 12.09.2002 directing to confiscate 100% of goods for the value of Rs.81,000/-. Being aggrieved by order of the District Supply Officer, the revisionist applicant preferred an appeal before the learned District Court, Rajkot, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2002. After hearing both the parties and having perused the material on record, the learned District Court, Rajkot was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal preferred by the revisionist applicant and affirmed the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Supply Officer and District Court, Rajkot, the present revision application is preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard Mr. Suren B. Patel, learned advocate for the revisionist applicant and Mr. Soham Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State – respondent.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Suren B. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant that the main object as per the reply given to the authorities was not to breach any Control Order. The goods which were given by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora from Bhavnagar was for storing the goods on his behalf. This aspect was very well explained by way of ‘chitthi’ (receipt) which was subsequently produced along with the reply asserting that the goods were sent by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora. Further the bill issued by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora as well as the statement of Mr. Chunilal K. Vora clearly reveal that the goods were sent by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora from Bhavnagar. In view of the same, the revisionist applicant cannot be said to have violated or breached any conditions