Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
SUDHIRBHAI NATVARLAL VYASV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hriday Buch, Kuldeep D Vaidya
For the Respondents: Rohan Raval
The court held that 100% confiscation of seized essential commodities is overly harsh if the applicant provides reasonable explanations for the possession of the goods and there are no complaints from the public, justifying a reduction in the penalty.
Headnote:(A) Confiscation of Goods - Essential Commodities - Proportionality of Penalty - 100% confiscation of seized stocks (gas cylinders, kerosene, diesel) is considered overly harsh when the applicant provides plausible explanations for storage and no third-party complaints are lodged. (Para 14, 15)
(B) Administrative Action - Consideration of Reply - Failure of the authority to appreciate the detailed reply and evidence submitted by the party against the seizure order renders the order liable for modification. (Para 10, 12)
Issues: Whether the order of 100% confiscation of seized stocks was just and proportionate given the facts and explanations provided by the applicant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts regarding the seizure of essential commodities and subsequent confiscation orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of the seizure and the failure of the authority to consider the applicant's explanations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the evidence and the determination that 100% confiscation is disproportionately harsh. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. modification of the confiscation order to 50% and release of the remaining stock. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
1) By way of 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 order dated 28.11.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.74/2011 as well as the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by Collector, Bhavnagar and thereby, further prayed to pass an order to release the confiscated stocks to the respondent.
2) Heard Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent.
3) Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.01.2011, a raid was carried out by Mamlatdar, Gariyaghar, at the residence/shop of the respondent. During further inquiry, It came to notice that the applicant used to store empty gas cylinders of his villagers and the consumers situated nearby villages and used to obtain the filled bottles from Gariyaghar Inden Gas Agency and used to distribute the same among various consumers at a higher rate. Thus, the respondent has violated the provisions contained under the Explosive Act, 1884 , as well as Rule 3[1](9)(c). 3(1) as well as Sections 6 , 7(b) and 7(c) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 read with the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 as well as Rule (10) and (43) of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004. Therefore, the raiding authority had seized 51 Gas Cylinders (for household use) valued at Rs.82,186.50/-.
4) The Mamlatdar, Gariyaghar, at the time of raid on 10.01.2011 also seized 400 liters of blue kerosene, valued at Rs.5,020/- and 650 liters of high speed diesel valued at Rs.27,833/- and it was alleged that the respondent had confessed that he used to sell the said kerosene along with the high speed diesel for the use of four wheelers/automobiles thereby the respondent had allegedly violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Kerosene [Restriction and Use and Fixation of Price) Order, 1993 as well as Rule 2(1)(1) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005.
5) Pursuant to the same, show cause was issued on 13.07.2011 calling upon the respondent to reply as to why the above seized stocks shall not be confiscated as contemplated under Section 6 (b) of the Act. In response to the said show cause notice, the respondent appeared and filed a detailed reply on 26.7.2011. In the said reply the respondent explained each and every aspects and stated that there has been no irregularity and/or illegality as alleged. The respondent has also explained in detail about the gas bottles and stated that the said bottles belong to various consumers. The details of the consumers have also been given along with their proof of existence.
6) Without appreciating the aforesaid, the respondent No.2 – Collector passed an impugned order dated 18.10.2011, whereby the entire seized stock had been ordered to be confiscated. On the same allegations, the applicant has also been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said prosecution is pending before the competent court.
7) Being aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2- Collector, the applicant approached the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, by way of preferring an appeal, as contemp
