The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly regarding the power of the District Magistrate to confiscate a vehicle, the owner's right to challenge the confiscation proceedings, and the appeal process.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur whereby the order dated 4.8.2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate, Seoni has been affirmed.

2. The District Magistrate, Seoni has ordered for the confiscation of the petitioner’s truck bearing Registration No.UP78-CN-3523. In the proceedings the District Magistrate has held that prima facie it appears that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by transporting the kerosene, hence the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni has been informed that the petitioner’s truck shall not be given on Supurdagi. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur although it is not mentioned as to under which provision of law the appeal has been preferred.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle which was being run on the National Permit and Basic Goods Permit. On 12.6.2016 when the petitioner’s vehicle was searched by the police of Police Station, Kanhiwada, it was found that 50 liters of prohibited kerosene was being transported in blue colour Cane and in the Diesel Tank, on being inspected by opening it, it was found that the kerosene smell was coming out and subsequently F.I.R. No.196/2016 was registered under the provision of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Challan has also been filed by the Police on 10.8.2016 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni against two persons, namely Hasan Khan (driver of the vehicle) and Raseed Navla Khan (cleaner) whereas the petitioner has not been a party in the aforesaid criminal case.

4. Since the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle, a show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate for confiscation of the aforesaid truck and the petitioner also filed an application for release of the aforesaid truck on Supurdagi which was dismissed by the District Magistrate vide its order dated 4.8.2016 on the ground that there no sufficient ground to release the seized vehicle. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but the same was also dismissed on the ground that only an interim, order has been challenged by the petitioner and no final order has been passed in the present case and the respondent No.3 has been directed to decide the proceeding of confiscation on merits. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had already submitted an application for obtaining the seized vehicle on Supurdnama before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni which was rejected vide order dated 27.6.2016 against which a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni who also dismissed the revision on 06.01.2017. Against the order dated 06.01.2017 passed in criminal revision, the petitioner also preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being M.Cr.C. No.2780/2017 and while deciding the aforesaid petition, this Court observed that since the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 18.1.2017, hence the petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order of Confiscating Officer/District Magistrate, Jabalpur.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid miscellaneous criminal case was also dismissed as already stated above that the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Commissioner, hence in this petition the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner is being challenged.

6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Truck is too expensive to be run on kerosene and only 50 liters of kerosene has been found in the truck, which cannot be the intention of the petitioner and it clearly shows that the same was being transporte