R/CR.RA/280/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 280 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== M/S VENUS PETROCHEMICALS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. THRO' Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 02/04/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) By way of a revision application under Section 397 (read with Section 438 of BNSS) and Section 401 (read with Section 442 of BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for the quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Case No. 5/2013, which confiscated 580.530 metric tons of goods, valued at Rs. 4,40,96,478.27/- as well as the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Appeal No. 35 of 2013, which modified the District Magistrate's order, directing confiscation of 5% of the goods, valued at Rs. 22,04,824/-, instead of the entire stock and thereby, refund the amount of Rs.22,04,824/- with interest from the date of deposit to the applicant. R/CR.RA/280/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 2) Heard Ms.Aesha Gandhi, learned counsel for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the State. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an importer of various solvents. The storage premise as per license were CRL, Terminal Pvt. Ltd, kandla and United Storage at Kandala. The applicant entered into an agreement on 26.04.2013 to import N- HEXENE with Rompetrol Refinery, Romania and consignment was to arrive in the last week of May, 2013. The storage tank terminated mentioned in the license were not available, therefore, the petitioner applied with District Supply Officer, on 08.05.2013 to add friends Oil and Chemicals Terminal Pvt. Ltd for storage. FOCT had also given NOC. The said intimation was given in compliance of condition No.10(4) and 10(9) of the license. Consignment came in June, 2013 and before one month, the applicant has intimated the authority that he is going to store the material at FOCT. At the time of unloading the Vessel and after the uploading, the intimation was given by FOCT on 18.06.2013 and 21.06.2013. But surprisingly on the same day i.e. 21.06.2013, DSO has visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods. 4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, looking to the provisions of Solvent Order and condition of license, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that petitioner has committed the breach of the same by storing the solvent at the place other than one mentioned in the license more particularly when advance intimation was given to the authority; that in past petitioner made request to DSO by letter dated 8.5.2012 to add name of FSWAI terminal in license and permit to store the goods. The DSO had R/CR.RA/280/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 granted temporary permission by letter dated 17.5.2012 to store the goods at FSWAI terminal though it was not mentioned in the license; that even the petitioner had requested the Authority one month before the arrival of goods to add FOCT terminal for storage place in the License and after unloading the Vessel also the intimation was given. Therefore, there is no breach of condition No.10(9) or any other conditions of the License; that looking to clause-3 (1), (2), (3) & (4), it is crystal clear that neither of the clause would not apply to the change of storage by prior intimation. Therefore, the show-cause notice itself is without application of mind and without any foundation; that the power exercised under section-4 of the 'Solvent Order of Seizure of Goods is ex-facie bad in law and therefore, the seizure order and further proceedings thereto are required to be quashed and set- aside by this Court. It is submitted that, the Collector failed to appreciate the detailed reply filed by the petitioner and ought to have appreciated that petitioner has applied on 08.05.2013 to DSO to add the name of FOCT terminal in the license as storage place along with the CRL and United terminals. The said application is not decided and no reply was given by the DSO. That even on 18.06.2013 before unloading the Vessel, the intimation was given and after storage of the same also, intimation was given on 21.06.2013. Therefore, there is no breach of any of the conditions of License or Order, 2000 or Gujarat Essential Commodities Act, committed by the petitioner. In such submissions, he has prayed to allow the application. 5) Learned APP for the applicant – State has submitted that the learned Collector has rightly passed an order of seizure which is in accordance with the applicable Act. Hence, present application may not be allowed. Page 3 of 5 R/CR.RA/280/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 6) Perusing the order passed by respondent No. 2 – Collector, it appears that the District Supply Officer, visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods in violation of Section 3 of the Order, 2000. From the record, it appears that, the applicant is an importer of various solvents. The storage premise as per license were CRL, Terminal Pvt. Ltd, kandla and United Storage at Kandala. The applicant entered into an agreement on 26.04.2013 to import N- HEXENE with Rompetrol Refinery, Romania and consignment was to arrive in the last week of May, 2013. The storage tank terminated mentioned in the license were not available, therefore, the applicant applied before District Supply Officer, on 08.05.2013 to add friends Oil and Chemicals Terminal Pvt. Ltd. for storage. FOCT had also given NOC. The said intimation was given in compliance of condition No.10(4) and 10(9) of the License. Consignment came in June, 2013 and before one month, the applicant has intimated the authority that he is going to store the material at FOCT. At the time of unloading the Vessel and after the uploading, the intimation was given by FOCT on 18.06.2013 and 21.06.2013. However, on the same day i.e. 21.06.2013, DSO has visited the FOCT terminal and seized the goods. It prima facie appears that there is no technical breach, but perusing the Circular at Annexure-H, permission is given to store the goods at another place and before one month, the applicant has already intimated the authority that he is going to store the material at FOCT, which was acceded by the authority. 7) Considering the aforesaid facts, there is no any allegation black- marketing. Further, in view of the law laid down in the cases of Murarilal Jhunjhunwala Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Reported in 1991 (suppl.) SCC 647 and Rekha Gupta Vs. Collector, Balasore, (Orissa High Court), in absence of mens rea, the order passed by R/CR.RA/280/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 District Supply Officer confiscating 5% goods, valued at Rs.22,04,824/- is perverse and unjustified. Therefore, the applicability of Order 2000 and Gujarat Essential Commodity Act do not arise. This aspect was not considered by respondent No. 2 – Collector. Moreover, storage of goods at another place or any other technical breach in absence of any allegations of black- marketing, does not warrant the seizure or confiscation of the goods. In support of this, reference is required to be made tn the decisions in Karan Oil Industries V. District Collector, Jamnagar, reported in 1996 (1) GLH 614, Patel Ambaram Dubebhai V. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 Cri.L.J 628, M.D. Agency V. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 (1) GLH 768 and N. Nagender Rao & Co. V. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663. Hence, in the absence of any allegations of black-marketing, confiscation of goods is not permissible. 8) In view of the above, judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Case No. 5/2013, which confiscated 580.530 metric tons of goods, valued at Rs.4,40,96,478.27/- as well as the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Appeal No. 35 of 2013, which modified the District Magistrate's order, directing confiscation of 5% of the goods, valued at Rs. 22,04,824/-, instead of the entire stock are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, present revision application is allowed and respondent No.2 shall do the needful for refund of confiscated goods / amount of the applicant. Rule is made absolute. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 12:28:55