CONFISCATION OF SEIZED ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES REDUCED TO FIFTY PERCENT ABSENT PROOF OF COMPLAINT OR MALAFIDE INTENT.

On January 10, 2011, the Mamlatdar, Gariyaghar, conducted a raid at the applicant's residence and shop

The authority seized 51 household gas cylinders (valued at ₹82,186.50), 400 liters of blue kerosene (valued at ₹5,020), and 650 liters of high-speed diesel (valued at ₹27,833)

It was alleged that the applicant illegally stored and distributed gas cylinders at higher rates and sold subsidized fuel for unauthorized automobile use

Following a show-cause notice, the Collector, Bhavnagar, ordered a 100% confiscation of the seized stock on October 18, 2011

This order was challenged and subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 74/2011 on November 28, 2013

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the confiscation was excessive and failed to consider his explanations

1. Whether the 100% confiscation of the seized stock by the Collector was legally sustainable in light of the applicant’s explanation regarding the origin and intended use of the goods

2. Whether the orders passed by the subordinate authorities neglected the principles of proportionality and failed to appreciate the evidence regarding the voluntary nature of gas cylinder storage by local consumers

The Court primarily applied Section 6B and 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, regarding the procedure for confiscation of seized essential commodities

The Court examined the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000; the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981; the Kerosene (Restriction and Use and Fixation of Price) Order, 1993; and the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005

The Court considered the procedural and remedial provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC

The Court observed that while the authorities found procedural irregularities—such as the applicant possessing 45 customer books and unauthorized quantities of fuel—they failed to adequately consider the applicant's defense

The applicant provided affidavits from consumers (residing in Surat) stating they voluntarily left their cylinders with him for facilitation, which negated the absolute presumption of black-marketing

Regarding the kerosene and diesel, the Court reasoned that the stock could have been intended for personal use in vehicles owned by the applicant and his brother

Significantly, the Court noted the absence of any public complaints against the applicant

While the Court acknowledged that technical violations occurred, it found the 100% confiscation to be "very harsh" and disproportionate to the nature of the irregularities proven

The Court modified the confiscation order from 100% to 50% of the seized stocks. The Collector, Bhavnagar, was directed to release the remaining 50% of the stock or refund the equivalent amount to the applicant