JUDGMENT

1) By way of this revision application under Section 397 (section 438 of BNSS) read with Section 401 (Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No.22/2008 confirming the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by District Collector, Ahmedabad in Case No.24/2008, whereby, District Collector ordered to confiscate 10% of the total seized stocks of Rs.10,14,282/-.

2) Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant is having solvent license under the Solvent RafÏnate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and thereby, the applicant is permitted to store, sell and trade in petroleum products of Class B and Class C. The said license was issued on 27.12.2004 by the Collector, Ahmedabad. That on 11.09.2007, District Supply OfÏcer, Ahmedabad inspected the oil depot of the applicant and according to them, two contraventions of conditions of the order were found i.e.

(i) that the applicant is not keeping the record at the place of business and

(ii) suspicious petroleum solvent was found from the depot of the applicant apart from the solvent petroleum of class B and Class C for which license was issued.

Thereby, District Supply OfÏcer seized in all 35,449 liters of Zenol and 14,214/- liters of bottom crude oil. Thereafter, District Collector, vide order dated 16.07.2008 has been pleased to order to confiscate 10% of the total seized solvent. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.22/2008 before learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which came to be dismissed and upheld the order of District Collector.

3) Heard Mr. Nitim Amin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent State. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that respondent No. 2 – Collector, Bhuj, and the learned Sessions Court have not considered the provisions of the said order. Solvent is defined in Clause 2(i) of the said Order. Pursuant to the Solvent RafÏnate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Amendment Order, 2001, the Government of India amended the said order of 2000. By amendment, the definition of “solvent” has been changed and it is mentioned that solvent means volatile fraction derived either directly or indirectly from petroleum or coal and are included in the Schedule and Zenol was not mentioned in 15 items. Though none of the items include Zenol as well as Bottom Crude Oil, District Supply OfÏcer seized the stocks. It is also submitted that, as per the Order, 2000 and Amendment Order, 2001, no license is required for storing and selling of solvent Zenol and Bottom Crude Oil. Thus, the ofÏcer of respondent No.2 have wrongly seized the goods, which even confirmed by learned trial Court, which itself is in contravention of Amendment Order, 2001. In light of these submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the revision application be allowed as requested.

5) On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent State has opposed the present revision application and submitted that during inspection conducted by the District Supply OfÏcer, two contraventions of conditions of the Order were found i.e.

(i) that the applicant is not keeping the record at the place of business and

(ii) suspicious petroleum solvent was found from the depot of the applicant apart from the solvent petroleum of Class B and Class C for which license was issued.

Therefore, District Supply OfÏcer had rightly seized in all 35,449 liters of Zenol and 14,214/- liters of bottom crude oil and later on, District Collector has been pleased to order to confiscate only 10% of the total seized goods. It is also submitted tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document