Confiscation for technical breaches is impermissible under the Essential Commodities Act absent allegations of black-marketing.

The respondent, a solvent dealer, had a tanker containing 12,000 liters of FA Residual Oil intercepted on June 25, 2007. Following an FSL report suggesting the oil was furnace oil mixed with water, the Mamlatdar alleged irregularities, including lack of a furnace oil license and maintenance of false accounts.

Consequently, the Collector, Bhavnagar, ordered the confiscation of the stock (valued at ₹2,74,560) and 5% of the tanker’s value.

The respondent appealed this to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, who quashed the confiscation order on October 5, 2011.

The State filed this revision application challenging that acquittal.

1. Whether the confiscation of goods is sustainable in the absence of evidence regarding black-marketing or improper sampling procedures.

2. Whether technical breaches, such as failure to maintain a stock register, justify the extreme measure of confiscation under the Essential Commodities Act.

The court applied Sections 397 (Section 438 BNSS) and 401 (Section 442 BNSS) of the CrPC regarding revisional jurisdiction.

Substantively, it relied on Section 3 of the Solvent Refrinate and Slop (Purchase, Sale Stock and Prohibition of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000, and Sections 8 and 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Control and Regulation of Business) Order, 1977.

The court reinforced the principle from Karan Oil Industries v. District Collector and N. Nagender Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh that technical breaches do not warrant confiscation unless accompanied by allegations of black-marketing.

The High Court observed that the FSL report was unreliable because the sampling procedure violated natural justice; specifically, the respondent was not provided a sample for independent testing.

The Court noted that the respondent provided reasonable explanations for the purchase and supply origins and found no evidence of past involvement in illegal trade.

Critically, the Court reasoned that while technical irregularities like failure to maintain a stock register or address discrepancies on vouchers were present, these do not automatically prove "black-marketing".

Following established precedents, the Court determined that the seizure and confiscation of essential commodities are disproportionate penalties for mere technical or clerical errors in the absence of a proven intent to bypass the regulated market.

The High Court dismissed the State's revision application and upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's judgment. The order dated April 21, 2011 (as per judgment date) finalized the release of the confiscated goods to the respondent.