The absence of conclusive evidence regarding the purpose of seized goods under the Essential Commodities Act justifies confiscation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2026 of 2025 DHARMENDRA RATHORE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Hemant Sharma, counsel for the State.

Heard On:24.07.2025 Delivered On:08.10.2025 ORDER This criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 398 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal no.35/2025 by 3rd Additional Session Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) by which the appeal filed under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , has been rejected thereby affirming the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain in Case No.16/Food Law/2024 thereby confiscating the seized rice.

2. Challenging the order passed by learned Appellate Court as well as Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain, it is submitted by counsel for the revision petitioner that on 11.11.2024 at about 11:30PM, a truck bearing No.MH-03-Y-2757 loaded the rice of Priyanshi Enterprises Signature Not Verified (Food grains Merchant and Commercial Agent) Choumella, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan in 503 sacks with total weight of 310.40quintals leave for destination at K.K. Impex Gandhidham, Gujarat. When the truck was crossing through the territorial limits of District Ujjain, M.P. then the tyre of the truck got punctured near Khachrod, District Ujjain. As the driver of the vehicle was resident of Khachrod, Ujjain, so he stayed in Khachrod due to night. Thereafter, the truck was intercepted. Jr. Supply Officer Khachrod Ms. Maya Dinkar, Subhash Sunhare Tehsildar Khachrod, Anil More Nayab Tehsildar Khachrod, Rajesh Rathore Center In-charge M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Branch Khachrod and Arjun Anjana Surveyor inspected the truck/vehicle at about 11:30AM on 13.11.2024. The Inquiry Officers found that the rice, which was seized, was meant for distribution under Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Panchnama was prepared accordingly.

3. A recommendation was forwarded to the Collector, Ujjain for confiscation of the rice under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . After giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, the Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain vide order dated 29.01.2025 directed for confiscation of the rice. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain, the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ujjain and vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2024, the Signature Not Verified learned Session Judge, Ujjain has dismissed the appeal.

4. Challenging the order passed by learned appellate Court as well as Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain, it is submitted by counsel for the revision petitioner that there is nothing on record to suggest that the rice which was seized, was meant for distribution under Public Distribution System. The sacks were not made of jute and they were of plastic bags which are easily available in the market. The seized rice does not come under the Government Scheme in Chaumella, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan since no such scheme is implemented in the State of Rajasthan. The said rice was loaded from Choumella, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan and sold to a trader of Kandla Gandhidham, Gujarat. Out of all the sacks kept in the vehicle, 59 sacks were shows to have the mark of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 150 sacks of rice from the entire rice of the petitioner's firm were taken out and after examination, the said rice was found to be of Public Distribution System Scheme (PDS). The samples of rice taken out of the sacks was said to be tested, but no lab report related to the said samples, was presented neither before the ADM, Ujjain nor before the appellate Court. The