IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 71 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

CHIRAG JAGDISH AGARWAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 12/03/2026 ORAL 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 14.11.2011 passed by learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhuj- Kachchh, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2006 as well as the order dated 29.04.2006 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

2) Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant is holding a license for running petrol & diesel pump at Mota Kapaya, Taluka Mundra, on the name and style of ‘Vinayak Petrol Pump’ since many years. A surprise checking by the Mamlatdar, Mundra, was carried out at the said pump on 29-8-2005. The inspecting team viz. Mamlatdar, Mundra, suspected certain irregularities, and therefore, seizure order dated 29-8-2005 was passed seizing the stock of 2267.84 liters of diesel amounting to Rs. 74.022/- and 3757.60 liters of petrol Rs. 1,65,146/-, thus, seized petrol and diesel total amounting to Rs. 2,39,168/-.

3) Heard Mr. H.R.Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.

Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent State.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that respondent No. 2 – Collector, Bhuj, and the learned Sessions Court have committed an error by considering the fact that, despite no irregularities being found, a show-cause notice was issued by the Mamlatdar for the alleged irregularities related to the stocks of petrol and diesel, and the same were confiscated, with the total value being Rs.1,65,146/-. It is further submitted that, though a specific defense was raised, no proper response was provided to it. On the contrary, the learned Sessions Court also misinterpreted the law laid down by this Court in the case of M.D. Agency vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) GLH 768. It is also submitted that the irregularities mentioned in the show-cause notice pertain only to diesel, although the goods of petrol were confiscated. The learned Sessions Court erred in considering the seizing and confiscation of goods that were not liable to be confiscated, without properly addressing the defense raised by the applicant. The goods were seized on the grounds of a technicality.

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 the inspection conducted on 26.08.2005 and 27.08.2005, certain irregularities were found in the stocks. It was found that 12,000 liters of diesel were illegally transported, exceeding the permissible limit of 2,500 liters, and 4,000 liters of diesel were sold to Balaji Lifter. Furthermore, interpolation was found in the diesel bills, resulting in irregularities in the price and stock board. Therefore, a show-cause notice was properly issued, and the answer and reply provided by the applicant were appropriately dealt with. The learned Sessions Court did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal. Hence, the learned APP has requested that the present revision application be dism