2025:BHC-AS:50182 Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.233 OF 2016 ARJUN VITTHAL The State of Maharashtra …Applicant KUDHEKAR Versus Digitally signed by Janata Enterprises & Ors. …Respondents ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.11.20

22:53:27 +0530 _______________________________________________________________

Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra.

Mr. Sharad S. Suryawanshi a/w Ranjit Hatkar i/b Pol Legal Juris, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 20 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Karmakar, learned APP, for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra and Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 6th January 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2013.

3. The brief facts are set out in Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the impugned Order dated 6th January 2014. The same read as under :-

“2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under ;

That on 13.8.2013 learned Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies Mumbai, Respondent no.1, visited the shop and godown of applicants and inspected the same. During inspection he found that appellants have not submitted fortnightly report with them nor maintained the stock register properly. So also they have not disclosed Rate Board nor produced the certificate issued by Weight and Measurement department as well as on inspection of godown they found excess stock of oil to the extent of 468.068 litre. Therefore, on same day they prepared panchnama and also prepared Supurtnama of said seized oil. On the basis of said panchnama on 16.8.13 he lodged report against applicants at Dindoshi police station vide Crime no.37/2013 u/s 3, 7, 8 and

10 of the Essential commodities Act.

3. It further appears that on the basis of said panchnama and complaint on 04.09.2013 respondent issued show cause notice to the appellants "why seized muddemal should not be confiscated u/s 6-A of the Essential commodities Act." On 24.8.13 and 21.10.13 appellants replied the said notice and submitted that some receipts in respect of oil stock to the extent of 468.068 liters cannot be prepared on that day. Therefore, entry about same could not be taken into computer. Therefore, prayed for releasing of oil stock to them.”

4. It is the submission of Mr. Karmakar, learned APP, that admittedly the terms and conditions of the license have been contravened and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave mistake by allowing the Appeal and by setting aside the Order dated 21st October 2013 passed by the Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies, Mumbai in Case No.65 of 2013, by which it was directed to confiscate seized edible oil having quantity 5,612.068 litres. Mr.

Suryawanshi, learned Counsel supported the impugned Order.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the finding has been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that although the Respondents have contravened the terms and conditions of license, but they have not violated the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said finding is not in accordance with the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further observed that the Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies passed the order of confiscation of the seized muddemal without following due procedure of law.

6. In any case, as the finding is recorded that although the terms and conditions of the license have been violated, however, the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have not been violated. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned Order. The Criminal Revision Application is di