Confiscation order passed by District Collector upheld.

The order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput in C.A.No.24 of 2002 is under challenge before this court by way of this revision petition.

2. An order passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram in Na.Ka.No.61315/2001 for an order of confiscation of Benzene/Solvent weighing 19.930 Metric Tons and confiscation of lorry bearing Registration No.MH 04 Al 2016 and GJ 11-T-8992 in which the said quantity of Benzene was transported and also the imposition of fine of Rs.50000/- each to the owners of the tanker lorry were challenged in Cr.A.No.23 of 2002 and in Cr.A.No.24 o 2002 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput.

3. The appellants in Crl.A.No.23 of 2002 are the owners of the tanker lorries mentioned above . After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and after going through the order passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram in Na.Ka.No.61315/2001 dated 22. 2002,the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput has allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram thereby setting aside the fine of Rs.50,000/-imposed by the District Collector, in the above said proceedings.

.4. Crl.A.No.24 of 2002 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput thereby confirming the order passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram in confiscating benzene weighing 19.930 metric tons transported under the above said two tanker lorries. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput in C.A.No.24 of 2002, this revision has been preferred by the revision petitioners herein who are the appellants in C.A.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would challenge the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput in C.A.No.24 of 2002 on the ground that solvent/benzene was seized on 10. 2001 by C.S.C.I.D. Officials under the order of confiscation was passed by the District Collector on 22. 2002 and that on the date of seizure ie., on 10. 2001, the amendment to Act 10 of 1955 Essential Commodities Act was not in force and the learned counsel would contend that only as per the amendment to the Act dated 211. 2001(typed set of papers at page No.21) licence for consumption of 50 kilo litres of solvent and storage of 20 Kls of solvent is not required and that the amendment for possessing licence for 50KL of solvent for consumption and 20 KL of solvent for stock is required only from 1st December 2001 and that since the solvent/benzene in this case has been seized on 10. 2001 itself, no licence is necessary.

6. Admittedly, the order for confiscation was passed on 22. 2002 by the District Collector, Kancheepuram for the violation of required licence for possessing and transporting the solvent. On the date of passing of the order by the District Collector, Kancheepuram for confiscation of the solvent,/ benzene in this case, the amendment dated 211. 2001 to the order of solvent,Reffinate and Slop(Acquisition, sale, storage and prevention of use in automobiles)Order, 2000 has already came into force. So it cannot be said that on the date of seizure of the solvent i.e., on 10. 2001, there is no amendment to the Solvent Reffinate and Slop(Acquisition, sale, storage and prevention of use in automobiles)Order, 2000, is in force requiring the revision petitioners to hold licence for possessing solvent/benzene. This has been dealt with by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in his Judgment at paragraph 11. It is in evidence that the first revision petitioner herein Thiru S.Ashokkumar has given a confession statement before the authorities to the effect that he is the owner of the benzene seized and has no licence to transport the same.

.7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would focus the attention of this Court to the mandatory violation of Rule 4(1)(a) of Solvent Reffinate and Slop (Acquisition, sale,