The court ruled that without clear evidence of a hazardous substance, the petitioner is entitled to the return of seized property, emphasizing the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) To allow this petition;

(b) To issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order (Annexure-A) 07.03.2024 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, At Dhoraji in Criminal Revision Application No. 8/2024 as well as the order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure-B) passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17/2024 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta in connection with FIR (Annexure- C) being No. 11213064230927 of 2023 registered with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural and further be pleased to release fuel oil (for industrial use) / material in question / muddamal oil seized in connection with FIR (Annexure – C) being No. 11213064230927 of 2023 registered with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural and pass all other consequential and effective orders in that regard qua the petitioner herein;

(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to release fuel oil (for industrial use) / material in question / muddamal oil seized in connection with FIR (Annexure – C) being No. 11213064230927 of 2023 registered with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural;

(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja for the respondent – State.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered on 27.12.2023 being C. R. No.11213064230927 of 2023 with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offence punishable under section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3 (2) (c), 3 (2) (d) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act alleging that a tanker bearing No. GJ-03-Y-8205 was intercepted upon secret information and upon interception of the tanker, it was found that tanker was carrying yellowish transparent petroleum liquid (fuel oil) in the second compartment, the first compartment was empty, third compartment also was empty and fourth compartment also was carrying a yellowish tranparent petroleum liquid. The sample was seized alongwith the petroleum product and an FIR was registered under the Essential Commodities Act on the ground that the product is inflammable petroleum product for which there is no license and therefore, the offence was registered.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha drew attention of this Court that the aforesaid FIR was stayed when it was subject matter of challenge before this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No. 461 of 2024 wherein vide order dated 18.01.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing rule granted interim relief to the petitioner and accordingly, the further proceedings pursuant to the FIR was stayed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for release of petroleum product as well as tanker before the competent court. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2024 by learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Upleta in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17 of 2024 and then the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 8 of 2024 vide order dated 07.03.2024, the aforesaid revision application also was rejected and therefore, the present petition is preferred.

6. It was pointed out by learned advocate Ms. Lodha that both the learned trial Courts have rejected the petitioner’s applications in view of a decision of this Court as stated in the order dated 07.03.2024 by learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji that in view of judgment of this Court in case of Pareshkumar Jaykar Brahmbhatt V/s. State of Gujarat , it was held that the Magisterial Court as well as Revisio