State Of Gujarat Thro Chief Secretary, ... vs Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Makwana on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.RA/588/2011                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                  R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 588 of 2011


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                   Approved for Reporting                         Yes            No

                      ==========================================================
                       STATE OF GUJARAT THRO CHIEF SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY &
                                                 ANR.
                                                 Versus
                                     BHARATBHAI KANJIBHAI MAKWANA
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                            Date : 21/04/2026

                                                              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 judgment dated 04.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.44/2008, whereby, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has been pleased to allow the appeal filed by the respondent by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.05.2008 passed by Collector, Bhavnagar, confiscating seized stock of Rs.84,875/-.

2) Heard Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the applicant - State.

Though served, none appears for the respondent.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

3) Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was engaged in the business of selling of light diesel oil and during checking carried out on 29/12/2007 by applicant, the respondent was found with certain irregularities like (i) display board did not contain the price and stock of the day on which checking was carried out; (ii) additional stock of 225 liter of diesel and 8150 liter of furnace oil was found (iii) as the stock of diesel and furnace oil was found access than the actual so there are possibility to believe that accounts are not maintained accordingly; (iv) licence to sell furnace oil was not obtained (v) stock register of light diesel oil was not updated mentioning the latest position and (vi) access stock found for two items for which no such purchase bill was produced and therefore the said stock of two items was found to be unaccounted.

4) Thus, upon found the above referred irregularities, the respondent committed breach of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order, 1977 and also committed breach of Section 3 (1) and 3 (3) of the Solvent Refrinate and Slop (Purchase, Sale Stock and Prohibition of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000. Hence the total stock valued at Rs.1,69,750/- was confiscated.

5) Thereafter, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 29/01/2008 by the authority narrating the irregularities committed by the respondent. In response of the show- cause notice, a written reply was submitted by respondent wherein it has been denied that any irregularities were committed by it.

6) Thereafter, the Collector, Bhavnagar vide order dated 27.05.2008 out of total seized stock of Rs.1,69,750/-, 50% stock of Rs.84,875/-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

was ordered to be confiscated.

7) Against the said the order of confiscation passed by the District Collector, Bhavnagar of confiscation, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhavnagar being Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2008 which came to be allowed and order of confiscation passed by the District Collector, Bhavnagar of confiscation dated 27/05/2008 has been quashed and set aside. Hence, present revision has been preferred before this Court.

8) Learned APP for the respondent State has submitted that respondent accused had not submitted proper explanation with regard to irregularities found from the spot; that the price and stock display board of the respondent-accused firm was not maintained on the date on which checking was carried out and this fact was admitted in the statement recorded by the authority of the person who was present on the spot and thus there is clear breach of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Further, the bill for additional stock found on the date of checking was produced however the said bill cannot be said to be valid because the said bill can be obtained of back date and thus the respondent committed breach of Section 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities Act, 1977.

9) Learned APP has further submitted that the respondent was found selling furnace oil without any permit or licence and explanation tendered in this regard is that he did not have knowledge. The said explanation cannot be said to be valid because the respondent was engaged in the business since so many years and he obviously has the knowledge and when he was caught red handed, he stated that he will get the licence, and hence this explanation is without any basis and respondent committed breach of Section 3 (1) of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

Act. Also, the explanation submitted by respondent agency is not tenable in eye of law, because the agency who was engaged in the business of selling of essential commodity, has to maintain the stock register at registered office or agency as required under the statute and the respondent-agency did not maintain the said register which irregularity found at the time of checking. In the statement recorded also the person found present had stated that by mistake the same has not been updated. Therefore, the explanation tendered by the respondent-agency is not believable; that the purchased goods were not shown in the stock register and therefore presumption ought to have been drawn that without issuing bill the respondent were selling the goods and thereby committed breach of Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act; that light diesel and furnace oil are essential commodity and with a view to have the smooth and easy circulation of the said article, the activity of such a nature ought to have been curbed. The respondent agency had not maintained the stock registers, which were selling by it and thereby committed breach of the Essential Commodities Act, 1977. However, the learned Judge below has not considered the seriousness of the crime in question. Therefore, the learned Judge below has passed an impugned order without appreciating the material placed on record by the District Collector and without considering the papers of the search, seizure and Panchnama and therefore also the impugned order requires to be quashed.

10) Perusing the order passed by the Collector, it appears that the respondent was engaged in the business of selling of light diesel oil and during checking carried out on 29/12/2007 by authority, the respondent was found with certain irregularities as mentioned above.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

11) The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after going through the material placed on record, it is necessary to consider the allegations made against the respondent. The details of the price and quantity have not been shown in the price and quantity board since the date of inspection by the authority. While verifying the present quantity, it was found that there was an excess of 225 liters in LDO and 8150 liters in Furnace Oil. The accounts of income and expenditure have not been maintained properly. It has not been taken in the license for the sale of Furnace Oil. The stock register of LDO is up to date till the end. No supporting evidence of the purchase of the quantity has been presented and it has been alleged that there has been unaccounted for.

12) Learned Addl. Sessions Court has rightly come to the conclusion that, the allegations made against the respondent are not of such a serious nature as to give reason for seizing the quantity during inspection by the authority. According to the circular, the respondent ought to have given warning or reprimand in a departmental manner. Moreover, it does not appear that the authority has made any measurement in the context of increase or decrease by the deep method by which it should be measured. In the context of increase and decrease, no detailed reasons have been given as to how the increase or decrease occurred. Also, it does not appear that the officer who made the submission has placed any facts before the Collector in relation to how his facts are correct and the respondent has not been given an opportunity to give rebuttal evidence. Only by issuing a show cause notice and making a direct appearance in person, the order has been passed. The manner in which the competent authority has conducted the case has been ordered only by considering the papers submitted before it by the Supply Officer and the documents sent by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

Collector. There is no evidence that an opportunity for cross- examination has been given. Therefore, when the principles of natural justice are violated, such an order cannot be sustained within the bounds of the law, and the resulting order is liable to be set aside.

13) Over and above the same, the failure to maintain a stock register or any other technical breach in absence of any allegations of black-marketing, does not warrant the seizure or confiscation of the goods. In support of this, reference is required to be made tn the decisions in Karan Oil Industries V. District Collector, Jamnagar, reported in 1996 (1) GLH 614, Patel Ambaram Dubebhai V. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 Cri.L.J 628, M.D. Agency V. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 (1) GLH 768 and N. Nagender Rao & Co. V. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663. Hence, in the absence of any allegations of black- marketing, confiscation of goods is not permissible.

14) In view of the above, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, has not committed any error in allowing Criminal Appeal No.44/2008 preferred by the respondent vide order dated 04.10.2011 and passing an order of releasing the confiscated goods to the respondent. Therefore, present revision application being meritless is dismissed accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT