State Of Gujarat vs Jaykishan Keshavlal Fulvani C/O Shree ... on 18 March, 2026

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/532/2009                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                   R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 532 of 2009

                                                         With
                                    R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 533 of 2009

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus JAYKISHAN KESHAVLAL FULVANI C/O SHREE HAREKRISHNA OIL ENTERP ========================================================== Appearance:

MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS ARCHANA ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 18/03/2026

COMMON 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 and orders dated 30.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, in Appeal Nos.29 and 30 of 2007, whereby, learned Addl.

Sessions Judge has been pleased to allow the appeals filed by the respondent by quashing the orders passed by Collector, Banaskantha.

2) Heard Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the applicant - State and Ms.Archana Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/532/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

3) Brief facts of the case are that, on 25.05.2007, while one loading rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-8V-1904 was passing from Shivdham Rasana Patiya of Deesa Highway, which was stopped and enquired about the stock of edible oil found from the loading rickshaw and the said stock was without bill carried from Chandisar GIDC to Gandhi Chowk, Deesa, it was seized by the authority. During the course of inspection, many alleged irregularities were committed by the respondent-dealer in violation Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order, 1977. Therefore, the respondent was issued notice under section 618 of the Essential Commodities Act dated 4.07.2007. On service of the notice, respondent appeared through advocate and submitted his reply. After hearing the respondent, respondent No.2 Collector was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the respondent and ordered to confiscate 50 % of stock seized by orders dated 19.09.2007. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of respondent No.2 - Collector, the respondent preferred Appeal Nos. 29 and 30 of 2007 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Palanpur, in which, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide orders dated 30.09.2008 has been pleased to allow the said appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Collector dated 19.09.2007. Hence, present revision applications preferred by the State.

4) Learned APP for the applicant - State has submitted that edible oil and seeds are not falling within the purview of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981; that during the course of inspection, statement of person in charge was recorded wherein irregularities mentioned in the show-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/532/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

cause notice have been admitted and not followed. Therefore, in the written reply to the show cause notice, the respondent might have not admitted certain irregularities, which does not mean that there is no admission of irregularities. It is also submitted that, learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that it was incumbent upon the respondent to maintain true and correct account of stock under the Order, 1977 and thereby, the respondent was not maintaining true and correct record and it has not been signed by the competent authority. No bill book was maintained and produced either at the time of inspection or at the time of hearing to the show-cause notice; that the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge is based on the wrong premise of law that the 1981 Control Order is not applicable to the edible oil and edible oil seeds. In such submissions, learned APP for the State has prayed to allow the revision applications and quashed the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision applications and stated that, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order after considering the applicable Orders, 1977 and 1981. Hence, present applications may not be allowed.

6) Perusing the order passed by respondent No. 2 - Collector, it appears that the District Supply Officer, Palanpur, intercepted a loading rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-08-V-1904. From the said rickshaw, edible oil was found, which was being transported from Chandisar GIDC to Gandhi Chowk, Deesa. However, no bill or rent receipt was found. As a result, along with the rickshaw, the stocks of custard oil (totaling a value of Rs. 1,11,634/- were seized in Appeal No.29/2007 and totaling a value of Rs.1,25,087/- were

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/532/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

seized in Appeal No30/2007). Cases were subsequently registered under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, and the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order, 1977.

7) During the proceedings before respondent No. 2 - Collector, show-

cause notice was issued. However, due to the respondent's absenteeism, the Collector passed an order to confiscate 50 % of the total stocks (i.e. in Appeal No. 29/2007, 50 % stock worth of Rs. 30,817/- and in Appeal No.30/2007, 50% stock worth of Rs.62,544/-) on 27.09.2007. The said orders were passed on the grounds that no accounts or stock statements were maintained, no bill books were submitted, and there was no board displayed regarding the stock. Further, the tins/labels that were supposed to contain cottonseed oil were found to be packed with custard oil. The respondent challenged the said orders in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by filing Appeal Nos. 29 and 30 of 2007.

8) Regarding the allegation of changing the nature of product in the cottonseeds oil tins, no evidence or admission was found on record. Even if we consider the seized goods, it appears that the product seized was custard oil and according to the Notification issued by the Gujarat State, groundnut oil, custard oil, cottonseed oil, and soybean oil are excluded from the 1981 Control Order, and there are no restrictions of free-trade or transportation. Therefore, the applicability of Control Order of 1977 does not arise. This aspect was not considered by respondent No. 2 - Collector. As the goods in question, namely custard oil, are exempt from the Control Order, there is no basis to initiate any proceedings. Moreover, the failure to maintain a stock register or

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/532/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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.

9) In view of the above, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, has not committed any error in passing the impugned orders dated 30.09.2008 in Appeal Nos. 29 and 30 of 2007, whereby the appeals were allowed and the orders of the Collector, Banaskantha, dated 19.09.2007, directing confiscation of 50% of the stock (valued at Rs. 30,817/-), were dismissed. Therefore, both revision applications being meritless are dismissed accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT