Gujarat High Court
Rajendrabhai Ravjibhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 215 of 2016
==========================================================
RAJENDRABHAI RAVJIBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 28/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred challenging the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which, inter alia, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist- applicant and confirmed the order dated 24.9.2014 passed by the Additional Collector and District Supply Officer, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined
2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application is that the revisionist applicant is the authorised distributor of Indian Oil Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IOCL') and was issue retail licence for dealing with the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Products. A surprise inspection was carried out at the premises of the applicant by the authorities on 1.10.2013. The inspection was carried out in presence of panchas and it was noticed that there was little discrepancy with regard to stock of LPG bottles. It was further found that total 340 LPG bottles weighing around 14.2 kg each was not found in sealed condition at the godown and that they were defective. Therefore, seizure order was passed and statements were recorded. Show- cause notice was issued to the applicant on 5.5.2014 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Additional Collector asking for response as to why the stock should not be confiscated. The reply was given by the applicant and after considering material on record, passed an order of confiscation of 50% of the stock i.e. 168 bottles amounting to the tune of Rs.69,552/-.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved by confiscation order dated 24.9.2014, the applicant preferred appeal under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 353 of 2014. The City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad while perusing the material on record and taking into consideration the averments made by the applicant, was pleased to dismiss the appeal by way of impugned order dated 11.12.2015, which has resulted into filing of the present revision application.
4. I have heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
5. Contention raised by Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant is that in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order, there is no reflection with regard to breach of any particular provisions of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 or the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. In absence of specific Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined violation of particular provisions of the Control Order, the show-cause notice as well as the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, suffered from non-application of mind and was required to be quashed. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant further submitted that when there was no breach of the Control Order, then the provisions of Essential Commodities Act could not have been applied by the Additional Collector. This aspect is totally ignored by the appellate Court.
6. The second submitted by Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicant is that the applicant had produced on record letter dated 30.7.2014 written by Principal i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the authorities i.e. the Additional Collector wherein it is stated that the Principal has certified that total 460 bottles of cylinders were defective and were supplied on 11th and 14th November, 2013. When such aspect has been categorically accepted by the Principal, then the applicant being an Agent, should not be made to suffer and the letter dated 30.7.2014 is not taken into consideration by the appellate Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined Court or the Additional Collector. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Prajapati requests to quash the order passed by the learned Additional Collector as well as the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court.
7. Per contra, Mr. Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution and has submitted that the orders passed by the learned Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Court is just and proper and the impugned orders require no interference.
8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record, the fact is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, 340 defective bottles were found at the premises of the applicant. The first contention is with regard to non-mentioning of breach of provisions of Control Order in the show-cause notice and the confiscation order. Simply because the Additional Collector did not mention the Control Order in the show-cause notice or confiscation order, it cannot be said that the allegation did not make out a case of commission of violation of provisions Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined of any Control Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. There is categorical observation with regard to the variation in stock as well as defective stock of LPG Cylinders. Therefore, this technical aspect raised by Mr. Prajapati cannot be countenanced.
9. The second aspect is with regard to communication dated 30.7.2014 written by the Principal i.e. IOCL to the respondent authorities. It needs to be borne out in mind that there were defective bottles of LPG Cylinders found on the premises of the applicant. It is also not in dispute that these LPG Cylinders were supplied to the end consumers and there were complaints received from end users- consumers. If the applicant was supplying defective pieces of LPG Cylinders to the consumers and there were complaints from the consumers, then there ought to have been communication between the applicant and the Principal i.e. IOCL, inviting the attention about the defective LPG Cylinders.
10. On scrutiny of the material placed on record, it is Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined evident that the applicant has never discussed this aspect with IOCL about the concern raised by the consumer. Only after the show-cause notice was issued on 5.5.2014, a communication dated 30.7.2014 was relied, which was by the Principal i.e. IOCL to the authorities about the defective LPG Cylinders. This communication would be of no help to the applicant, inasmuch as, if there were defective pieces of LPG Cylinders of the applicant, they could not have entrusted onward supply to the consumers and when there is specific observation in the show-cause notice as well as confiscation order that there was specific complaint by the consumer, the applicant in the fitness of situation was required to sort-out this aspect with IOCL. There is nothing on record to show cause that the applicant has raised such issue with the IOCL. Therefore, the ground as sought for by Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant pleading innocence of the applicant is not justified. If the LPG Cylinders were defective, there was no reason to supply Gas cylinders to the consumers. Even after they were supplied, then this issue ought to have been raised by the present Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/215/2016 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2025 undefined applicant with the IOCL. Therefore, communication by IOCL after show-cause notice was issued to the authorities would not be of any help to the applicant.
11. In view of the same, there cannot be any infirmity attached to the confiscation orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 24.9.2014 as well as the impugned order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014.
12. In view of the above mentioned discussion, the present revision application is meritless and is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Fri Mar 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 29 01:09:04 IST 2025