KIRITBHAI AMICHANDBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/972/2005                               JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 972 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
          Approved for Reporting            Yes        No

==========================================================
                     KIRITBHAI AMICHANDBHAI PATEL
                                     Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
   CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                               Date : 11/03/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1.       By way of the present Criminal Revision Application, the
applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:


         “(A) Your Lordship be pleased to call for record of the case No.
         Supply/ECA/6A/38/03 from the office of the respondent no.2
         and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside
         the order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the respondent no. 2
         confiscating stock of 3,99,171 liters of pit oil amounting to Rs.
         37,72,166/- and stock of 440 liters of spray oil (while oil)
         amounting to Rs. 5,060/- total amounting to Rs. 37,77,226/-
         and also judgment and order dated 28-9-2005 passed by the
         Special Judge (Essential Commodities) Fast Tract Court No. 1,
         Patan, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2004.

         (B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondentno.2 to
         release entire stocks confiscated bythe order dated 10-11-2004
         and confirmed in appeal by order dated 28-9-2005 as the
         products confiscated are dangerous and it may evaporate
         effectively day by day which may cause damage to either of
         the parties pending admission and hearing and disposal of this
         revision application.

         (C) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2
         either to hand over entire stock to the petitioner with the
         permission to sell it in open market or the respondent no.2
         themselves may sale it to the necessary parties and deposit
         the amount of sale in Nationalized Bank so as to protect the
         interest of both the parties pending admission, hearing and
         final disposal of this revision application.”


                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.RA/972/2005                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




2.       Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.


3.       The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
impugned order of confiscation passed by respondent No.2
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
and the order confirming the same passed by the learned
Appellate Court are illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to
the provisions of law. It is submitted that under the Solvent,
Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention
of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, the definition of “solvent”
was       initially     very   wide;     however,    considering       several
representations received from across the country, the Central
Government amended the definition in the year 2001 by
restricting it to specific items mentioned in the Schedule. The
Central Government had also informed all the States regarding
the said amendment.


4.       It is contended that the products seized from the petitioner,
namely pit oil and spray oil, do not fall within the definition of
“solvent” as provided in the amended order. Despite this legal
position being brought to the notice of respondent No.2, the
authority proceeded to confiscate the stock without proper
jurisdiction. The learned advocate further submits that the
respondent authority acted with undue haste without awaiting
the report of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from non-
application of mind and deserve to be quashed and set aside.




                                       Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.RA/972/2005                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




5.       Mr.     Rohan     Raval,     learned       APP    appearing        for    the
respondent–State, has supported the impugned orders passed by
the competent authority as well as the Appellate Court. It is
submitted that respondent No.2 exercised powers under Section
6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 after conducting due
inspection and finding that a large quantity of petroleum
hydrocarbon products, namely pit oil and spray oil, was stored
by the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the seized
products are mixtures of petroleum hydrocarbons and fall within
the ambit of “solvent” as contemplated under the Solvent Control
Order, 2000. It is further submitted that the competent
authority,        after   following    due      procedure       and      giving        an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order of
confiscation, which has rightly been confirmed by the Appellate
Court.



6.       Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the record, it appears that the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2004 passed by
respondent No.2, purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
whereby the stock of 3,99,171 litres of pit oil (a mixture of
petroleum hydrocarbons) amounting to Rs.37,72,166/- and 440
litres of spray oil (white oil) amounting to Rs.5,060/-, totalling
Rs.37,77,226/-, came to be confiscated. The said order has been
confirmed         in    appeal   by   the     judgment       and     order      dated
28.09.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Essential
Commodities), Fast Track Court No.1, Patan, in Criminal Appeal


                                      Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.RA/972/2005                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




No.21 of 2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
preferred the present revision application under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7.       In view of the above, the moot question that arises for
consideration            before    this    Court        is        whether      the     alleged
confiscated goods, namely pit oil (a mixture of petroleum
hydrocarbons), fall within the category of “solvent” under the
Solvent Control Order issued under the Essential Commodities
Act, and consequently whether any control order or licence is
required for its storage or sale. The learned advocate for the
applicant has mainly submitted that the FSL report does not
contain any specific opinion stating that the seized material is a
solvent mixture, and the mere presence of hydrocarbons cannot
be a ground to presume that the alleged goods fall under Section
3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the other hand,
the learned APP has opposed the application contending that
under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas, vide order dated 05.06.2000,
defined “solvent” as volatile fractions derived either directly or
indirectly from petroleum or coal, which may consist of single
hydrocarbon components such as propane, benzene, toluene,
xylene, etc., or narrow or wide boiling ranges of hydrocarbons.

8.       The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the aforesaid definition came to be amended vide notification
dated 21st November, 2001 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas, wherein “solvent” has been defined as volatile
fractions derived either directly or indirectly from petroleum or
coal.     Such          solvents   may       consist         of     single     hydrocarbon



                                          Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.RA/972/2005                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




components like propane, benzene, toluene, xylene, etc., or
narrow or wide boiling ranges of hydrocarbons.

9.       Since the definition of “solvent” has been amended and the
alleged confiscated goods do not fall within the category of
solvent, respondent No.2 has committed an error in initiating the
proceedings. From the very beginning, the petitioner had raised
a specific defence, in response to the show-cause notice, that a
preliminary issue ought to have been decided as to whether the
alleged mixture, namely pit oil, falls within the definition of
solvent or attracts the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act. However, the said issue has neither been
decided by the learned Collector nor by the appellate authority.
It further appears from the record that respondent No.2 had
addressed communication to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) seeking clarification regarding the nature and composition
of pit oil and the mixture from which it was prepared. However,
no specific opinion has been provided by the FSL in this regard.
Even the Supply Department of the Government of Gujarat had
advised the Collector to take appropriate action after obtaining
the opinion of the FSL. Despite this, in the absence of any clear
finding       or    specific   opinion   from     the   FSL      regarding       the
applicability of the Essential Commodities Act and the nature of
the petroleum hydrocarbons found in the seized material, i.e. pit
oil (a mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons), the impugned action
has been taken without proper determination of the relevant
issue.

10.      Considering the aforesaid facts and more particularly the
specific defence raised by the petitioner vide submission dated



                                    Page 5 of 6
         R/CR.RA/972/2005                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026




   14th September, 2004 addressed to respondent No.2 (Annexure-
   L) regarding the applicability of the Essential Commodities Act, it
   appears that no issue was framed or decided prior to deciding
   the matter as to whether the provisions of the Essential
   Commodities Act were applicable. The impugned order is silent
   on this aspect, and the appellate authority has also remained
   silent with regard to Annexure-L. More particularly, in light of
   the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the present
   matter is required to be decided afresh after considering the FSL
   report and by first determining the preliminary issue regarding
   the applicability of the Essential Commodities Act, namely
   whether pit oil falls within the category of solvent or not?

   11.       On an overall appreciation of the fact on record, the
   Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 10-11-2004
   passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 28-9-2005 passed by
   the Special Judge (Essential Commodities) Fast Tract Court No. 1,
   Patan, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2004 , are hereby quashed and
   set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority
   – Respondent No.2 for deciding the case afresh after giving an
   opportunity of hearing to both the parties.



   12.       The authority shall decide the matter on its own merits,
   without being influenced by the observations made by this
   Court, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
   receipt of this order. No order as to costs.


                                                                     (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
   ALI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/03/2026 18:18:18


                                                 Page 6 of 6