1 2025:CGHC:758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 413 of 2014 M/s Kamla Gas Agency L.P.G. Distur Through The Power Of Attorney Jayant Manhar S/o. Late Bhagatram Manhar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Shraddha Mishra on behalf of Mr. Prateek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shraddha Mishra on behalf of Mr. Prateek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned counsel for respondent / State. 2. The present Criminal Revision is preferred against the judgment KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.07 11:54:07 +0530 2 and order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 82/2013, arising out of order dated 29.01.2013 passed in Commodity Case No. 42/2008-09 by the Court of Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Court had partly allowed CRR No. 414/2014 (Jayant Manhar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) vide order dated 03.09.2024, observing as follows : “7. Since the learned counsel for the applicant does not want to contest this petition on merits but has confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of penalty stating it to be excessive, we affirm the findings of the learned Collector as well as the appellate Court so far as the finding of the guilt of the applicant is concerned. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been directed to be confiscated from the value of the seized auto alongwith a cylinder worth Rs. 1700/-. This Court finds the penalty of confiscation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the State to be excessive and instead, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if an amount of Rs. 20,000/- only is directed to be confiscated from the value of the seized auto bearing No. CG-10A-3836. It is ordered accordingly. 8. On a pointed query as to whether the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as has been ordered by the learned Collector and affirmed by the appellate Court, has been paid by 3 the applicant or has been confiscated by the State, neither the counsel for the applicant nor the State is in position to state anything. As such, it is directed that if no amount has been realized by the State or paid by the applicant, then the applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of one month from today failing which the same shall be recovered from the applicant as arrears of land revenue by issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate. 9. The revision petition accordingly stands partly allowed” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CRR No. 414/2014, this appeal may also be partly allowed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this revision is identical to CRR No. 414/2014, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRR No. 414/2014. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in CRR No. 414/2014. 6. As such, it is directed that if no amount has been realized by the State or paid by the applicant, then the applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of one month from today failing which the same shall be recovered from the applicant as 4 arrears of land revenue by issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate. 7. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal