M/S VENUS PETROCHEMICALS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. THRO'versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/280/2014                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 280 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

           Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

==========================================================
    M/S VENUS PETROCHEMICALS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. THRO'
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 02/04/2026

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

  1) By way of a revision application under Section 397 (read with
       Section 438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (read with Section 442 of
       BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”),
       the applicant has prayed for the quashing and setting aside the
       judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the District
       Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Case No. 5/2013, which confiscated
       580.530 metric tons of goods, valued at Rs. 4,40,96,478.27/- as well
       as the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional
       Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Appeal No. 35 of 2013, which
       modified the District Magistrate's order, directing confiscation of
       5% of the goods, valued at Rs. 22,04,824/-, instead of the entire
       stock and thereby, refund the amount of Rs.22,04,824/- with
       interest from the date of deposit to the applicant.




                                 Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.RA/280/2014                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




2)       Heard Ms.Aesha Gandhi, learned counsel for Mr. Mehul Sharad
         Shah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval,
         learned APP for the State. Though served, none appears for
         respondent No.2.

3)       Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an importer of
         various solvents. The storage premise as per license were CRL,
         Terminal Pvt. Ltd, kandla and United Storage at Kandala. The
         applicant entered into an agreement on 26.04.2013 to import N-
         HEXENE with Rompetrol Refinery, Romania and consignment was
         to arrive in the last week of May, 2013. The storage tank
         terminated mentioned in the license were not available, therefore,
         the petitioner applied with District Supply Officer, on 08.05.2013
         to add friends Oil and Chemicals Terminal Pvt. Ltd for storage.
         FOCT had also given NOC. The said intimation was given in
         compliance of condition No.10(4) and 10(9) of the license.
         Consignment came in June, 2013 and before one month, the
         applicant has intimated the authority that he is going to store the
         material at FOCT. At the time of unloading the Vessel and after
         the uploading, the intimation was given by FOCT on 18.06.2013
         and 21.06.2013. But surprisingly on the same day i.e. 21.06.2013,
         DSO has visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods.

4)       Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, looking to
         the provisions of Solvent Order and condition of license, by no
         stretch of imagination it can be said that petitioner has committed
         the breach of the same by storing the solvent at the place other
         than one mentioned in the license more particularly when advance
         intimation was given to the authority; that in past petitioner made
         request to DSO by letter dated 8.5.2012 to add name of FSWAI
         terminal in license and permit to store the goods. The DSO had



                                   Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.RA/280/2014                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




         granted temporary permission by letter dated 17.5.2012 to store
         the goods at FSWAI terminal though it was not mentioned in the
         license; that even the petitioner had requested the Authority one
         month before the arrival of goods to add FOCT terminal for
         storage place in the License and after unloading the Vessel also
         the intimation was given. Therefore, there is no breach of
         condition No.10(9) or any other conditions of the License; that
         looking to clause-3 (1), (2), (3) & (4), it is crystal clear that neither of
         the clause would not apply to the change of storage by prior
         intimation. Therefore, the show-cause notice itself is without
         application of mind and without any foundation; that the power
         exercised under section-4 of the 'Solvent Order of Seizure of
         Goods is ex-facie bad in law and therefore, the seizure order and
         further proceedings thereto are required to be quashed and set-
         aside by this Court. It is submitted that, the Collector failed to
         appreciate the detailed reply filed by the petitioner and ought to
         have appreciated that petitioner has applied on 08.05.2013 to DSO
         to add the name of FOCT terminal in the license as storage place
         along with the CRL and United terminals. The said application is
         not decided and no reply was given by the DSO. That even on
         18.06.2013 before unloading the Vessel, the intimation was given
         and after storage of the same also, intimation was given on
         21.06.2013. Therefore, there is no breach of any of the conditions
         of License or Order, 2000 or Gujarat Essential Commodities Act,
         committed by the petitioner. In such submissions, he has prayed to
         allow the application.

5)       Learned APP for the applicant – State has submitted that the
         learned Collector has rightly passed an order of seizure which is in
         accordance with the applicable Act. Hence, present application
         may not be allowed.


                                      Page 3 of 5
R/CR.RA/280/2014                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




6) Perusing the order passed by respondent No. 2 – Collector, it
    appears that the District Supply Officer, visited the FOCT terminal
    and seized the goods in violation of Section 3 of the Order, 2000.
    From the record, it appears that, the applicant is an importer of
    various solvents. The storage premise as per license were CRL,
    Terminal Pvt. Ltd, kandla and United Storage at Kandala. The
    applicant entered into an agreement on 26.04.2013 to import N-
    HEXENE with Rompetrol Refinery, Romania and consignment was
    to arrive in the last week of May, 2013. The storage tank
    terminated mentioned in the license were not available, therefore,
    the applicant applied before District Supply Officer, on 08.05.2013
    to add friends Oil and Chemicals Terminal Pvt. Ltd. for storage.
    FOCT had also given NOC. The said intimation was given in
    compliance of condition No.10(4) and 10(9) of the License.
    Consignment came in June, 2013 and before one month, the
    applicant has intimated the authority that he is going to store the
    material at FOCT. At the time of unloading the Vessel and after
    the uploading, the intimation was given by FOCT on 18.06.2013
    and 21.06.2013. However, on the same day i.e. 21.06.2013, DSO
    has visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods. It prima facie
    appears that there is no technical breach, but perusing the Circular
    at Annexure-H, permission is given to store the goods at another
    place and before one month, the applicant has already intimated
    the authority that he is going to store the material at FOCT, which
    was acceded by the authority.

7) Considering the aforesaid facts, there is no any allegation black-
    marketing. Further, in view of the law laid down in the cases of
    Murarilal Jhunjhunwala Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Reported in
    1991 (suppl.) SCC 647 and Rekha Gupta Vs. Collector, Balasore,
    (Orissa High Court), in absence of mens rea, the order passed by


                              Page 4 of 5
R/CR.RA/280/2014                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




    District Supply Officer confiscating 5% goods, valued at
    Rs.22,04,824/-           is    perverse         and      unjustified.         Therefore,          the
    applicability of Order 2000 and Gujarat Essential Commodity Act
    do not arise. This aspect was not considered by respondent No. 2 –
    Collector. Moreover, storage of goods at another place 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.

8) In view of the above, judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed
    by the District Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Case No. 5/2013, which
    confiscated           580.530         metric        tons       of      goods,        valued         at
    Rs.4,40,96,478.27/- as well as the order dated 28.02.2014 passed
    by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Appeal
    No. 35 of 2013, which modified the District Magistrate's order,
    directing confiscation of 5% of the goods, valued at Rs.
    22,04,824/-, instead of the entire stock are hereby quashed and set
    aside. Accordingly, present revision application is allowed and
    respondent No.2 shall do the needful for refund of confiscated
    goods / amount of the applicant. Rule is made absolute.



                                                                   (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

    SUCHIT

  Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
  Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 12:28:55


                                            Page 5 of 5