THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusM/S. RAKESH TRADING

                                                                                     3-REVN-456-2016.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.456 OF 2016
           Digitally signed
           by SATISH
           RAMCHANDRA
SATISH     SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
           Date:
SANGAR
           2026.01.19
           12:12:32
                              The State of Maharashtra                                ...Applicant
           +0530



                                     V/s.
                              M/s.Rakesh Trading                                      ...Respondent

                                                                 *****

                              Mr.Hintendra J. Dedhia:-                    APP for Applicant – State.
                              Mr.Anus Pande h/f Mr.Mukesh Aiya:-          Advocate for Respondent.

                                                             *****
                                                        CORAM :            S. M. MODAK, J.
                                                        DATE        :      17th JANUARY 20256
                              P. C. :-

                              1.     This Revision is listed after so long time.

                              2.      It is true it was listed lastly on 8 th November 2023. Considering

                              the lapse of time, even learned APP and learned Advocate for

                              Respondent are not aware whether the stock is returned to Respondent

                              No.2 as directed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in the order

                              dated 14th May 2015. The order came to be passed in Appeal filed by

                              the Respondent as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities

                              Act, 1955. In the said Appeal, there was challenge to an order dated

                              10th November 2014 passed by the Rationing Officer.


                              Satish Sangar                                                            1/3
                                                      3-REVN-456-2016.doc


3.     As per the said order, the Rationing Officer has given separate

directions in respect of stock of palmolein oil. Certain stock which was

not adulterated was directed to be deposited with the Government.

There was direction to sell it and deposit the amount with the

Government Treasury. The stock which was adulterated was to be used

for the purpose of industrial use. However, when the Appeal was filed,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the entire order and

directed its release to the Respondent.

4.     Learned APP has invited my attention to the reasoning given by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order. In

paragraph No.15, he has stated that “palmolein oil was not to be

recorded in the stock register.” After going through the analysis report,

the Sessions Court observed “report does not disclose whether the

substandard stock is injurious to human consumption or not” . In

paragraph No.21, he observed:-

     “There is no substantial evidence on record to support the
     inferences drawn by Rationing Authority that appellant has
     committed any breach of the provisions of Section 3,7,8 10 of
     Essential Commodities Act, 1955”.

On its reading, even I find that these reasoning are erroneous. The

Rationing Officer inspected the premises of Respondent at Bhiwandi

Satish Sangar                                                          2/3
                                                         3-REVN-456-2016.doc


on 9th May 2014. They have inspected the stock and the record. They

found variance and even they found overwriting in the registers. They

found that the vouchers are not coming forward so as to justify the

stock. That is why, FIR came to be lodged against the Applicant under

various sections of Essential Commodities Act and the relevant order

with Kongaon Police Station on 10th May 2014.

5.     For wants of instructions, both of them are unable to address the

Court what is the status of that investigation. Even they are unable to

tell as to whether stock was returned on the basis of the order passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is also true that it is edible oil

and it is perishable material. Due to passage of time, this Court is

unable to reverse the order because if the stock is already returned,

there is no point in reversing the order. It can only be said that the

findings by the Sessions Court are erroneous. Hence, this Revision

Application is disposed of as become infructuous. It is a matter of

record that the order impugned is not stayed by this Court. If criminal

case is going on, let the concerned Court decide the case as per its

merits without being influenced by the observations made

hereinabove.


                                      [S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar                                                             3/3