IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 280 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== M/S VENUS PETROCHEMICALS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. THRO'

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 02/04/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) By way of a revision application under Section 397 (read with Section 438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (read with Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for the quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Case No. 5/2013, which confiscated 580.530 metric tons of goods, valued at Rs. 4,40,96,478.27/- as well as the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Appeal No. 35 of 2013, which modified the District Magistrate's order, directing confiscation of 5% of the goods, valued at Rs. 22,04,824/-, instead of the entire stock and thereby, refund the amount of Rs.22,04,824/- with interest from the date of deposit to the applicant.

2) Heard Ms.Aesha Gandhi, learned counsel for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the State. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

3) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an importer of various solvents. The storage premise as per license were CRL, Terminal Pvt. Ltd, kandla and United Storage at Kandala. The applicant entered into an agreement on 26.04.2013 to import N- HEXENE with Rompetrol Refinery, Romania and consignment was to arrive in the last week of May, 2013. The storage tank terminated mentioned in the license were not available, therefore, the petitioner applied with District Supply Officer, on 08.05.2013 to add friends Oil and Chemicals Terminal Pvt. Ltd for storage. FOCT had also given NOC. The said intimation was given in compliance of condition No.10(4) and 10(9) of the license. Consignment came in June, 2013 and before one month, the applicant has intimated the authority that he is going to store the material at FOCT. At the time of unloading the Vessel and after the uploading, the intimation was given by FOCT on 18.06.2013 and 21.06.2013. But surprisingly on the same day i.e. 21.06.2013, DSO has visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, looking to the provisions of Solvent Order and condition of license, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that petitioner has committed the breach of the same by storing the solvent at the place other than one mentioned in the license more particularly when advance intimation was given to the authority; that in past petitioner made request to DSO by letter dated 8.5.2012 to add name of FSWAI terminal in license and permit to store the goods. The DSO had granted temporary permission by letter dated 17.5.2012 to store the goods at FSWAI terminal though it was not mentioned in the license; that even the petitioner had requested the Authority one month before the arrival of goods to add FOCT terminal for storage place in the License and after unloading the Vessel also the intimation was given. Therefore, there is no breach of condition No.10(9) or any other conditions of the License; that looking to clause-3 (1), (2), (3) & (4), it is crystal clear that neither of the clause would not apply to the change of storage by prior intimation. Therefore, the show-ca