Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2009. The appellate court had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent, Pratapbhai Bhaishanker Pandya, and modified the order of confiscation of 100% stock of LDO valued at Rs. 2,43,616/- passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, to the extent of 20% instead of 100%. The background facts are that on 27.08.2007, the District Supply Officer, Bhavnagar, carried out a checking of the respondent's business premises in the presence of panchas. During the checking, irregularities were found: unaccounted stock of 10592 liters of LDO, business carried out without a licence, and failure to produce sale records. Consequently, the respondent was found to have committed breach of Section 3(1) of the Solvent Refrinate and Slop (Purchase, Sale Stock and Prohibition of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 and Section 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order, 1977. The District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation of 100% of the stock. The respondent appealed, and the appellate court reduced the confiscation to 20%. The State, being aggrieved, filed the present revision. The High Court considered the submissions of both sides. The learned APP for the State argued that the appellate court erred in reducing the confiscation as the respondent had committed serious irregularities. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the appellate order, submitting that the confiscation was excessive and the appellate court had rightly exercised its discretion. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, particularly Section 6A, which deals with confiscation of essential commodities. The court noted that the power of confiscation is discretionary and not mandatory. The appellate court had considered the facts and circumstances and found that full confiscation was not warranted. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was neither perverse nor illegal, and thus no interference was called for. However, the High Court partly allowed the revision to the extent that the order of the appellate court was confirmed, meaning the reduction to 20% was upheld. The court directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to pay the amount equivalent to 20% of the value of the stock within a specified period, failing which the confiscation would stand. The judgment was delivered by Justice P. M. Raval on 21/01/2026.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Discretionary Power - Section 6A Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The appellate court has discretion to modify the quantum of confiscation under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In this case, the respondent was found with unaccounted stock of LDO and carrying business without licence. The appellate court reduced confiscation from 100% to 20% of the stock value. The High Court upheld the reduction, holding that full confiscation was not warranted as the irregularities were not of a grave nature and the respondent had not been given an opportunity to explain before the initial order. (Paras 1-9) B) Essential Commodities Act - Confiscation - Proportionality - Section 6A Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The quantum of confiscation must be proportionate to the gravity of the violation. The High Court held that reducing confiscation to 20% was reasonable given the nature of irregularities, which included unaccounted stock and lack of licence, but not involving adulteration or public health risk. (Paras 5-9) C) Criminal Revision - Scope - High Court's Power - Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court in revision can interfere with an appellate order only if it is perverse or illegal. Here, the appellate court's order was found to be neither perverse nor illegal, and thus the revision was partly allowed only to the extent of confirming the reduction. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reducing the confiscation of stock from 100% to 20% in a case involving irregularities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and related orders.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, dated 31.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2009 is confirmed. The respondent is directed to pay the amount equivalent to 20% of the value of the stock within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, failing which the confiscation shall stand.
Law Points
- Confiscation under Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 is discretionary
- not mandatory
- Appellate court can modify confiscation order
- Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 provides for confiscation of essential commodities
- Section 3(1) of Solvent Refrinate and Slop Order
- 2000
- Section 9 of Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order
- 1977
