FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Approved for Reporting Yes No

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 08/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1) By way of revision applications 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 – State has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar by confirming the order of confiscation dated 18.10.2001 passed by District Collector, whereby, learned District Collector, ordered to confiscate the goods from the firm of the respondent worth of Rs.1,06,580/-.

2) Heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the applicant – State and Mr. Deepak Khanchandani, learned counsel for the respondent.

3) Brief facts of the case are that, on 04.08.2000, District Supply OfÏcer, Bhavnagar, visited the business premises of the respondent and checking was carried out and it was found with

(i) opening and closing stock was not maintained

(ii) the stock register of the brand-wise item was not maintained upto the date of checking and account was not maintained and

(iii) there was a deficit stock in the brand-wise sell.

Thereby, it was alleged that the respondent breached the provisions of Gujarat Essential Commodities (Business Regulation) Order, 1977 and thus, total stock of Rs.1,06,580/- was seized.

4) Learned APP for the applicant – State has submitted that the order passed below Exh:12 by learned Court below is not just in the eye of law so also contrary to the facts on record of the case as the respondent committed breach of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order, 1977. As per the requirements, day to day accounts are required to be maintained and the respondent had admitted that the packing wise, brand-wise and stock wise the said accounts were not maintained by him. The respondent accused was not maintaining the register of the groundnut as well as groundnut oil and also not maintaining display board and stocks. So far as seizure of groundnut oil is concerned, no such explanation is given and thereby, admission was made on behalf of the respondent accused of having commercial usage which were in fact allotted for household purpose and therefore, no interference with the said order is made by the learned Court below. The respondent was found with the unauthorized stock which would encourage the activity of black marketing thereof and would create great hardship for the common people. Further, as per Section 3 of the Order, 1977, the respondent ought to have displayed closing and opening stock and by not doing so, the presumption of doing black-marketing was there. Therefore, in the written reply to the show cause notice, the respondent might have not admitted certain irregularities, which does not mean that there is no admission of irregularities. It is also submitted that, learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that it was incumbent upon the respondent to maintain true and correct account of stock under the Order, 1977 and thereby, the respondent was not maintaining true and correct record and it has not been signed by the competent authority. No bill book was maintained and produced either at the time of inspection or at the time of hearing to the show-cause notice; In such submissions, learned APP for the State has prayed to allow the revision applications and quashed the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision applications and stated that, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order after considering the applicable Orders, 1977 and 1981. Hence, present application may not be allowed.

6) Perusing the order passed by respondent No. 2 – DSO, Bhavnagar, it appears that the District Supply OfÏ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document