STATE OF GUJARAT THRO ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARYversusM/S ASITOCHEM OWNER OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN SMT.TARUBEN RAJESHBHAI PAREKH

     R/CR.RA/590/2011                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 590 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================

              Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

==========================================================
 STATE OF GUJARAT THRO ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY FOOD & CIVIL & ANR.
                              Versus
       M/S AITOCHEM MANAGER, RAJESHBHAI NANDLAL PAREKH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 21/04/2026

                                  JUDGMENT

1)       By way of revision application 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 05.10.2011
         passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal
         Appeal No.64 of 2008, whereby, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has
         been pleased to allow the appeal filed by the respondent by quashing
         the order of confiscation dated 30.08.2008 passed by Collector,
         Bhavnagar.

2)       Heard Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the applicant – State.
         Advocate notice for the respondent is unserved.




                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.RA/590/2011                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




3)       Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was engaged in the
         business of selling of solvents item and on 24/06/2007 the tanker
         bearing Registration No.GJ-2X-1115 containing FA Residual Oil 12000
         liters was to be delivered to S K Impex Firm, Mamsa, Bhavnagar and
         on 25/06/2007 the Police Sub Inspector, LCB, Bhavnagar carried out
         the checking and did not find satisfactory reply from the driver and
         cleaner and the same was produced before the Court and thereafter
         learned Magistrate, Ghogha passed an order on 29/12/2007 to
         release the said truck. However, the Mamlatdar carried out the
         checking of the truck and stock in the truck and found with certain
         irregularities like (i) tanker contained 12000 liters of FA Residual oil
         which was to be delivered to SK Impex Firm, Mamsa, Bhavnagar
         However, as the said liquid was found to be suspicious, it was sent to
         FSL and as per report of the FSL, it was furnace oil mixed with water
         and as per Section 3 of the Solvent Refrinate and Slop (Purchase, Sale
         Stock and Prohibition of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, licence to
         sell furnace oil requires to be obtained. And, upon verification of
         voucher, no such licence number is mentioned in the said vouchers.
         Hence, you have not obtained any licence to sell furnace oil (ii) sale
         was done by way of issuing false and bogus bills (iii) that accounts of
         business are found with irregularities (iv) by mentioning different
         address on the government record and bill, intention of committing
         irregularities is revealed.


4)       Thus, upon found the above referred irregularities, the respondent
         committed breach of Sections 8 and 9 of the Chijarat Essential
         Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order, 1977 and
         also committed breach of Section 3 of the Solvent Refrinate and Slop
         (Purchase, Sale Stock and Prohibition of use in Automobiles) Order,
         2000, hence, total stock of FA. Residual of 12000 liters valued at



                                       Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.RA/590/2011                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




         Rs.2,74,560 and tanker valued at Rs.2,20,000/- totaling to Rs
         4,94,560/- was confiscated.

5)       Thereafter, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 14/03/2008 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 passed an order of confiscation
         dated 30/08/2008 whereby total seized stock of Rs.2,74,560/- was
         ordered to be confiscated and as well as 5% of the truck value i.e.
         Rs.11,000/- was also ordered to be confiscated.

7)       Against the said the order of confiscation dated 30/08/2008 passed
         by the District Collector, Bhavnagar, the respondent had preferred an
         appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar being Criminal
         Appeal No.64 of 2008 on 16/06/2008, which came to be allowed and
         order of confiscation dated 30/08/2008 passed by the District
         Collector. Bhavnagar is quashed and set aside. Hence, this revision
         preferred before this Court.

8)       Learned APP for the applicant – State has submitted that the
         respondent failed to give proper explanation with regard to
         irregularities found from the spot; that as per Section 3 of the
         Solvent Refrinate and Slop (Purchase, Sale Stock and Prohibition of
         use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, licence to sell furnace oil requires to
         be obtained because the furnace oil is included in the list of schedule
         in Solvent Order, 2000. The respondent was going to deliver 12000
         liters of FA Residual oil in the tanker without having any licence to
         sell the same and even as per the report of the FSL the said stock of
         furnace oil was found to be mixed with water. It is also submitted
         that if the address mentioned in the bill is changed, then the new



                                       Page 3 of 6
R/CR.RA/590/2011                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




    address ought to have been stamped in the said bill and thereafter
    only the business transaction can be done. Even during the period
    from 01/10/2006 to 30/06/2007 no such sale transaction was
    mentioned before the Sales Tax Department. In-fact, upon sales
    transaction on the next day the necessary sales tax is required to be
    deposited before the authority. However, by not doing so and by
    mentioning wrong address in the bill, it has been found that
    respondent was doing irregularities in the business; 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. It is also submitted 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. In such submissions, learned APP for the State has prayed to
    allow the revision application and quashed the order of learned Addl.
    Sessions Judge.

9) Perusing the order passed by the Collector, it appears that the
    respondent was engaged in the business of selling of solvents item
    and on 24/06/2007 the tanker bearing Registration No.GJ-2X-1115
    containing FA Residual Oil 12000 liters was to be delivered to S K
    Impex Firm, Mamsa, Bhavnagar and on 25/06/2007 the Police Sub
    Inspector, LCB, Bhavnagar carried out the checking and did not find
    satisfactory reply from the driver and cleaner and the same was
    produced before the Court and thereafter learned Magistrate,
    Ghogha passed an order on 29/12/2007 to release the said truck.
    However, the Mamlatdar carried out the checking of the truck and
    stock in the truck and found with certain irregularities. However, no



                               Page 4 of 6
  R/CR.RA/590/2011                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




      proper explanation in this regard was given by the respondent.

10)   After examining the records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
      found that there was no proper evidence of adulteration. There was
      no proof that samples of the seized goods were taken correctly in the
      presence of the respondent or that they were properly sent for
      laboratory testing. Normally, samples should be divided into three
      parts, two samples kept by the authority for testing and one should
      be given to the respondent so that they can request re-testing if
      needed. Since the respondent was not given this opportunity, the
      test report cannot be relied upon. Any order based on such a report
      may be unjust and perverse and can be set aside. The learned Addl.
      Sessions Court Judge also noted that the respondent was not given a
      fair opportunity to defend himself, which goes against the principles
      of natural justice. There is no evidence showing that the respondent
      was involved in black marketing in the past or that any such action
      was taken against him. The respondent also provided reasonable
      explanations about where the goods were purchased and where they
      were supplied. Additionally, there is no allegation that the
      respondent     was   involved   in   black   marketing     of    essential
      commodities.

11)   Moreover, 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



                                 Page 5 of 6
    R/CR.RA/590/2011                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




         permissible.


    12) In view of the above, learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhavnagar,
         has not committed any error in allowing the appeal of the respondent
         and releasing the confiscated goods to the respondent vide order
         dated 05.10.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2008. Therefore,
         present revision application being meritless is dismissed accordingly.




                                                                         (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 22/04/2026 17:01:27


                                                 Page 6 of 6