-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Gattu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.648/2004 against the judgment dt.16.1.2003 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2002. Date of Judgment: May 05, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr.Vishnu Kachhwaha, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, dated 16.1.2003, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner u/s.6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred-to as “the Act of 1955”) by confirming the order of the Collector, Udaipur dated 27.7.1996 for confiscation of 3960 litres of diesel , recovered from his shop on 15.5.1996 in violation of -2- Clause 15 of the Rajasthan Petroleum Product (Licensing & Control) Order, 1990. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 3960 litres of diesel, 2500 litres belonged to the petitioner Gattulal and remaining was of one Dhanpal. According to him, had there been any mens rea of the accused petitioner, the State could have prosecuted him under the Act of 1955, but no prosecution has been launched. It is true that in this case, the prosecution has not been launched but under Section 6A of the Act of 1955, in pursuance of the order passed under Section 3 of the Act of 1955, the Collector of the district may seize such articles and if he is of the opinion that contravention has been made of any order passed under Clause 15 of the Order, he can order for confiscation. It is not necessary that there should always be prosecution for violation of the order. Under Clause 15 of the Order, a person can keep 2500 litres of diesel at a time, but here in this case, the recovered diesel was 3960 litres and no evidence has been led at the time of seizure or thereafter to the effect that the diesel more than 2500 litres, was belonging to Dhanpal. Had it been so, Dhanpal could have produced the bills etc. to prove the same. In the absence of it, the order of the learned -3- Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur dated 16.1.2003 confirming order of confiscation of diesel, passed by the Collector, Udaipur dt.27.7.1996, requires no interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS