Confiscation under Essential Commodities Act is impermissible for technical breaches absent evidence of black-marketing or adulteration.

The respondent, a solvent dealer, was transporting 12,000 liters of "FA Residual Oil" via tanker on 24/06/2007. Upon inspection by the Mamlatdar, irregularities were alleged, including suspicions that the liquid was furnace oil mixed with water (per FSL report) being sold without a license, the use of bogus bills, and address discrepancies.

On 30/08/2008, the Collector, Bhavnagar, ordered the confiscation of the stock (valued at Rs. 2,74,560) and 5% of the tanker’s value.

The respondent challenged this before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2008, which was allowed on 05/10/2011, quashing the confiscation order.

The State filed the present revision application challenging the acquittal.

1. Whether the confiscation of goods is legally sustainable in the absence of evidence regarding black-marketing or a fair opportunity for the respondent to contest the FSL findings.

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

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

Substantively, it relied on Section 3 of the Solvent Refinate 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 prioritized the principle of Natural Justice concerning sample testing and followed judicial precedents—including Karan Oil Industries v. District Collector (1996) and N. Nagender Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994)—which establish that technical breaches without evidence of black-marketing do not warrant confiscation.

The High Court observed that the lower appellate court correctly identified procedural lapses: the respondent was not provided a sample of the seized goods for independent testing, rendering the FSL report unreliable and violating principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, the court noted that the State provided no evidence of the respondent's prior involvement in black marketing or illicit trade.

Applying established case law, the court reasoned that mere technical irregularities, such as address discrepancies on bills or failure to maintain stock registers, are insufficient grounds for confiscation if there is no proof of an intent to commit "black-marketing" of essential commodities.

It held that the Additional Sessions Judge committed no error in quashing the confiscation order, as the proceedings were marred by lack of evidence and procedural unfairness. The order dated 05/10/2011 releasing the confiscated goods was upheld.