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

The respondent, a dealer in free-sale kerosene operating as Maruti Traders, was inspected by the Mamlatdar on April 29, 2002, during which irregularities in stock maintenance were discovered

Consequently, a seizure order was passed for the kerosene stock, and the District Supply Officer (DSO) issued a show-cause notice under the Essential Commodities Act on May 23, 2002

On June 19, 2002, the DSO ordered the confiscation of 2,000 liters out of the 6,630 liters of kerosene seized

The respondent challenged this before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Appeal No. 08 of 2002.

On June 15, 2009, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the DSO's order by releasing 1,000 liters of the confiscated kerosene

The State of Gujarat filed the present revision application seeking to quash the appellate court's order and reinstate the full confiscation

1. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in modifying the confiscation order due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence regarding black-marketing

2. Whether a technical breach, such as failure to maintain stock registers, warrants the confiscation of goods under the Essential Commodities Act in the absence of proof of black-marketing

The court examined the exercise of revisional powers under Section 397 (Section 438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (Section 442 of BNSS) of the CrPC

It applied Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, which governs the confiscation of seized commodities

The court relied on the established principle that technical breaches, such as failure to maintain stock registers, do not justify confiscation unless accompanied by evidence of black-marketing, as held in Karan Oil Industries v. District Collector (1996 (1) GLH 614), Patel Ambaram Dubebhai v. State of Gujarat (1999 Cri.L.J 628), and N. Nagender Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1994 SC 2663)

The High Court observed that while the DSO found a stock deficit of 2,740 liters and suspected black-marketing, the appellate court correctly identified significant procedural and evidentiary gaps

Specifically, the respondent was denied the opportunity to cross-examine panchwitnesses during the inquiry, rendering the procedure flawed

Furthermore, the court noted that apart from the inspecting officer's report, there was no independent evidence or admission on record to prove black-marketing or the sale of kerosene at higher prices

Following judicial precedents, the court reasoned that in cases involving only technical breaches—such as improper maintenance of stock statements—confiscation of goods is not permissible under the Essential Commodities Act

Thus, the appellate court's decision to provide partial relief was deemed legally sound

The court affirmed that in the absence of proven black-marketing, full confiscation for a technical breach is unwarranted

Consequently, the revision application filed by the State was dismissed as meritless