ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordship be pleased to call for record of the case No. Supply/ECA/6A/38/03 from the office of the respondent no.2 and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the respondent no. 2 confiscating stock of 3,99,171 liters of pit oil amounting to Rs. 37,72,166/- and stock of 440 liters of spray oil (while oil) amounting to Rs. 5,060/- total amounting to Rs. 37,77,226/- and also judgment and order dated 28-9-2005 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities) Fast Tract Court No. 1, Patan, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2004.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondentno.2 to release entire stocks confiscated bythe order dated 10-11-2004 and confirmed in appeal by order dated 28-9-2005 as the products confiscated are dangerous and it may evaporate effectively day by day which may cause damage to either of the parties pending admission and hearing and disposal of this revision application.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 either to hand over entire stock to the petitioner with the permission to sell it in open market or the respondent no.2 themselves may sale it to the necessary parties and deposit the amount of sale in Nationalized Bank so as to protect the interest of both the parties pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this revision application.”

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned order of confiscation passed by respondent No.2 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the order confirming the same passed by the learned Appellate Court are illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. It is submitted that under the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, the definition of “solvent” was initially very wide; however, considering several representations received from across the country, the Central Government amended the definition in the year 2001 by restricting it to specific items mentioned in the Schedule. The Central Government had also informed all the States regarding the said amendment.

4. It is contended that the products seized from the petitioner, namely pit oil and spray oil, do not fall within the definition of “solvent” as provided in the amended order. Despite this legal position being brought to the notice of respondent No.2, the authority proceeded to confiscate the stock without proper jurisdiction. The learned advocate further submits that the respondent authority acted with undue haste without awaiting the report of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP appearing for the respondent–State, has supported the impugned orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Appellate Court. It is submitted that respondent No.2 exercised powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 after conducting due inspection and finding that a large quantity of petroleum hydrocarbon products, namely pit oil and spray oil, was stored by the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the seized products are mixtures of petroleum hydrocarbons and fall within the ambit of “solvent” as contemplated under the Solvent Control Order, 2000. It is further submitted that the competent authority, after following due procedure and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order of confiscation, which has rightly been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the record, it appears that the petitioner has challen