Dangal Singh v. State of U.P.) whereby, the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist had been dis

1. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 6-A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'), the Swift Dezire Car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090, had been confiscated in favour of the State and it had been provided that if the revisionist deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- in the State Treasury, his vehicle may be released.

3. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also assailed the judgement and order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) whereby, the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order dated 16.2.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah, had been affirmed.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.07.2022, the police party along with the Supply Inspector conducted a raid on Refill Booking Centre, Saray Dayanat Gwalior Tiraha Bypass, Etawah and it was found that the work of illegal filling of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) was being done. It has been alleged that on the spot, one Santro Car bearing Registration No. UP75 J 8010 and another Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 were present. It has further been alleged that from the place of occurrence, one Santro Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 J 8010, 18 empty gas cylinders, 9 cylinders filled with L.P.G., one commercial cylinder, 5 small cylinders having capacity of 2 kg, 2 refilling machines and 1 electrical weighing machine were taken into custody.

5. The police had registered the First Information Report No. 0254 of 2022 under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 against Ashish Savita and drivers of the two cars bearing Registration Nos. U.P.75 S 0090 and UP 75 J 8010. It has been alleged that the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 disappeared from the place of occurrence and later on, the said car and its driver were taken into custody from other place.

6. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 were initiated by the District Magistrate, Etawah on the basis of the report dated 22.11.2022 submitted by the Supply Inspector, Etawah. The District Magistrate, Etawah issued show cause notice to Ashish Savita son of Hari Shankar on 6.3.2023. On 14.6.2023, the show cause notices were issued by the District Magistrate, Etawah to the owners of both the cars namely, Gyanesh Kumar Saxena and Dangal Singh (the present revisionist). The Ashish Savita had submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 8.5.2023 and the revisionist Dangal Singh had submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 27.6.2023.

7. The revisionist i.e. Dangal Singh, in his reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, had submitted that the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 cannot be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, as there is no proof that in the car in question, any L.P.G. kit was fitted and further there is no material available on record, on the basis of which it can be said, that the L.P.G. was filled in the car and at the time of seizure of the car, the L.P.G. was found in the car.

8. The District Magistrate, Etawah, after considering the reply submitted against the show cause notice, had passed the impugned order dated 16.2.2024 in Case No. 191 of 2023 whereby, 27 domestic gas cylinders, one commercial gas cylinder, two gas cylinders having capacity of 5 kg., 2 refilling machine, one electronic weighing machine and two cars bearing Registration Nos. U.P.75 S 0090 and UP75 J 8010 had been confiscated in favour of the State. The District Magistrate in his order dated 16.2.2024, had further provided that if the revisionist deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- in the State Treasury, his Swift Dezire Car can be released in his favour, provided it is not wanted in any other criminal case.

9. The revisionist challenged the order dated 16.2.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) before the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah. The appellate court had passed the judgment and order dated 2.5.2025 whereby, the Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, filed by the revisionist, had been dismissed.

10. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that it is admitted case of the opposite parties that the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was not taken into custody from the place where the raid was conducted and later on, it had been taken into custody from the house of the revisionist. It has further been contended on behalf of the revisionist that there does not exist any evidence that in the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car any L.P.G. kit was fitted and further at the time of car being taken into custody, no quantity of L.P.G. gas had been found in the car.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 provides that the District Magistrate can confiscate the essential commodity so seized; any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. It has further been submitted that it is apparent from bare perusal of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 that any vehicle can be confiscated only if any essential commodity was being carried in the said vehicle and had been seized whereas, in the present case, there is no material on record to show that any essential commodity ( L.P.G.) has been found in the revisionist's car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the power of confiscation can be exercised by the District Magistrate within the four corners of the provisions made under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, where it is provided that a vehicle, used in carrying the essential commodity, can be confiscated, whereas in the present case, there is no material on record to show that any essential commodity has been recovered from the revisionist' car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090, as such the orders impugned in this criminal revision are unsustainable in the eyes of law.

13. It has further been argued on behalf of the revisionist that even the authorities concerned have not placed any material on record to show, as to whether any L.P.G. kit was fitted in the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090. Once there is no such material, the exercise of power by the District Magistrate, Etawah under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, on its face, is illegal.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the basic material needed for exercise of power under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 is missing but the said issue, neither has been considered by the District Magistrate, Etawah nor by the appellate court, while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024.

15. Lastly, it has been argued that the orders impugned in this criminal revision are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same may be set aside by this Court with direction that the Swift Dezire Car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 may be released in his favour.

16. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that the police party along with the Supply Inspector had conducted a raid on the spot and the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was present, at the time of raid and filling of L.P.G. in the said car was in progress but all of a sudden, the driver of the said car disappeared with the car from the place of occurrence. He has further argued that once there is allegation that illegal filling of L.P.G. in the car bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was in progress at the time of the raid, the said vehicle comes within the four corners of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 and thereby, it had been confiscated. Learned Additional Government Advocate has further argued that there is neither any irregularity nor illegality in the impugned order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) and the impugned order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) therefore, the criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

18. It transpires from the record that there is allegation that Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was present on the place of occurrence at the time of raid and L.P.G. was being filled in the said car. All of a sudden, the driver along with the car disappeared from the place of occurrence. Later on, the said car had been taken into custody by the police from the house of the revisionist.

19. It is noteworthy that there is no material available on record to show that any L.P.G. kit has been found fitted in the car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 and further there is no material on record to show that at the time of car being taken into custody, any quantity of L.P.G. has been found in the said car.

20. For appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, it is apt to have a look over the provisions made in Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 therefore, the Section 6-A of The Essential Commodity Act, 1955 is extracted as under: " [6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.― [(1)] Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order [may order confiscation of― (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:] Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: [Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.] (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may― (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: [Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public.] (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall― (a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires, or (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized.]"

21. From bare reading of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, it is apparent that the District Magistrate is empowered to confiscate the essential commodity so seized; any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Thus, for a vehicle to be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, it is essential that the said vehicle must have been used for carrying any essential commodity or at least some essential commodity must have been recovered from the said vehicle.

22. This court finds that there is no material on record to show that the car in question bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was being used for carrying any essential commodity and further there is also no material to show that any essential commodity (L.P.G.) had been recovered from the car. This Court further finds that if the provisions of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 are read carefully, it is apparent that any vehicle cannot be confiscated merely on the allegation that L.P.G. was being illegally filled in the said vehicle. The power of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 comes into play in respect of a vehicle only in two exigences i.e. the said vehicle has been used for carrying essential commodity as mentioned in Section 6-A (1) (c) or any essential commodity has recovered from the vehicle as provided under Section 6-A (1)(b) of the Act, 1955.

23. The record of the case available in the criminal revision does not reflect that either the aforesaid car bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was being used in carrying the essential commodity or any quantity of L.P.G. has been recovered from the said car therefore, this Court is of the view that the vehicle in question, by no stretch of imagination, can be confiscated in exercise of power under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955.

24. This court finds that since the order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah and the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, are not in conformity with the provisions made under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, the said orders, to the extent of confiscation of the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P. 75 S 0090, can not sustain in the eyes of law.

25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) and the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, to the extent of confiscation of the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P. 75 S 0090, are hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to release the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090, forthwith. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 6-A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'), the Swift Dezire Car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090, had been confiscated in favour of the State and it had been provided that if the revisionist deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- in the State Treasury, his vehicle may be released.

3. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also assailed the judgement and order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) whereby, the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order dated 16.2.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah, had been affirmed.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.07.2022, the police party along with the Supply Inspector conducted a raid on Refill Booking Centre, Saray Dayanat Gwalior Tiraha Bypass, Etawah and it was found that the work of illegal filling of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) was being done. It has been alleged that on the spot, one Santro Car bearing Registration No. UP75 J 8010 and another Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 were present. It has further been alleged that from the place of occurrence, one Santro Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 J 8010, 18 empty gas cylinders, 9 cylinders filled with L.P.G., one commercial cylinder, 5 small cylinders having capacity of 2 kg, 2 refilling machines and 1 electrical weighing machine were taken into custody.

5. The police had registered the First Information Report No. 0254 of 2022 under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 against Ashish Savita and drivers of the two cars bearing Registration Nos. U.P.75 S 0090 and UP 75 J 8010. It has been alleged that the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 disappeared from the place of occurrence and later on, the said car and its driver were taken into custody from other place.

6. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 were initiated by the District Magistrate, Etawah on the basis of the report dated 22.11.2022 submitted by the Supply Inspector, Etawah. The District Magistrate, Etawah issued show cause notice to Ashish Savita son of Hari Shankar on 6.3.2023. On 14.6.2023, the show cause notices were issued by the District Magistrate, Etawah to the owners of both the cars namely, Gyanesh Kumar Saxena and Dangal Singh (the present revisionist). The Ashish Savita had submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 8.5.2023 and the revisionist Dangal Singh had submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 27.6.2023.

7. The revisionist i.e. Dangal Singh, in his reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, had submitted that the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 cannot be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, as there is no proof that in the car in question, any L.P.G. kit was fitted and further there is no material available on record, on the basis of which it can be said, that the L.P.G. was filled in the car and at the time of seizure of the car, the L.P.G. was found in the car.

8. The District Magistrate, Etawah, after considering the reply submitted against the show cause notice, had passed the impugned order dated 16.2.2024 in Case No. 191 of 2023 whereby, 27 domestic gas cylinders, one commercial gas cylinder, two gas cylinders having capacity of 5 kg., 2 refilling machine, one electronic weighing machine and two cars bearing Registration Nos. U.P.75 S 0090 and UP75 J 8010 had been confiscated in favour of the State. The District Magistrate in his order dated 16.2.2024, had further provided that if the revisionist deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- in the State Treasury, his Swift Dezire Car can be released in his favour, provided it is not wanted in any other criminal case.

9. The revisionist challenged the order dated 16.2.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) before the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah. The appellate court had passed the judgment and order dated 2.5.2025 whereby, the Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, filed by the revisionist, had been dismissed.

10. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that it is admitted case of the opposite parties that the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was not taken into custody from the place where the raid was conducted and later on, it had been taken into custody from the house of the revisionist. It has further been contended on behalf of the revisionist that there does not exist any evidence that in the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car any L.P.G. kit was fitted and further at the time of car being taken into custody, no quantity of L.P.G. gas had been found in the car.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 provides that the District Magistrate can confiscate the essential commodity so seized; any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. It has further been submitted that it is apparent from bare perusal of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 that any vehicle can be confiscated only if any essential commodity was being carried in the said vehicle and had been seized whereas, in the present case, there is no material on record to show that any essential commodity ( L.P.G.) has been found in the revisionist's car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the power of confiscation can be exercised by the District Magistrate within the four corners of the provisions made under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, where it is provided that a vehicle, used in carrying the essential commodity, can be confiscated, whereas in the present case, there is no material on record to show that any essential commodity has been recovered from the revisionist' car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090, as such the orders impugned in this criminal revision are unsustainable in the eyes of law.

13. It has further been argued on behalf of the revisionist that even the authorities concerned have not placed any material on record to show, as to whether any L.P.G. kit was fitted in the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090. Once there is no such material, the exercise of power by the District Magistrate, Etawah under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, on its face, is illegal.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the basic material needed for exercise of power under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 is missing but the said issue, neither has been considered by the District Magistrate, Etawah nor by the appellate court, while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024.

15. Lastly, it has been argued that the orders impugned in this criminal revision are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same may be set aside by this Court with direction that the Swift Dezire Car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 may be released in his favour.

16. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that the police party along with the Supply Inspector had conducted a raid on the spot and the revisionist's Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was present, at the time of raid and filling of L.P.G. in the said car was in progress but all of a sudden, the driver of the said car disappeared with the car from the place of occurrence. He has further argued that once there is allegation that illegal filling of L.P.G. in the car bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was in progress at the time of the raid, the said vehicle comes within the four corners of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 and thereby, it had been confiscated. Learned Additional Government Advocate has further argued that there is neither any irregularity nor illegality in the impugned order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) and the impugned order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 ( Dangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) therefore, the criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

18. It transpires from the record that there is allegation that Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 was present on the place of occurrence at the time of raid and L.P.G. was being filled in the said car. All of a sudden, the driver along with the car disappeared from the place of occurrence. Later on, the said car had been taken into custody by the police from the house of the revisionist.

19. It is noteworthy that there is no material available on record to show that any L.P.G. kit has been found fitted in the car bearing Registration No. U.P.75 S 0090 and further there is no material on record to show that at the time of car being taken into custody, any quantity of L.P.G. has been found in the said car.

20. For appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, it is apt to have a look over the provisions made in Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 therefore, the Section 6-A of The Essential Commodity Act, 1955 is extracted as under: " [6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.― [(1)] Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order [may order confiscation of― (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:] Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: [Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.] (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may― (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: [Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public.] (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall― (a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires, or (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized.]"

21. From bare reading of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, it is apparent that the District Magistrate is empowered to confiscate the essential commodity so seized; any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Thus, for a vehicle to be confiscated under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, it is essential that the said vehicle must have been used for carrying any essential commodity or at least some essential commodity must have been recovered from the said vehicle.

22. This court finds that there is no material on record to show that the car in question bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was being used for carrying any essential commodity and further there is also no material to show that any essential commodity (L.P.G.) had been recovered from the car. This Court further finds that if the provisions of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 are read carefully, it is apparent that any vehicle cannot be confiscated merely on the allegation that L.P.G. was being illegally filled in the said vehicle. The power of the Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 comes into play in respect of a vehicle only in two exigences i.e. the said vehicle has been used for carrying essential commodity as mentioned in Section 6-A (1) (c) or any essential commodity has recovered from the vehicle as provided under Section 6-A (1)(b) of the Act, 1955.

23. The record of the case available in the criminal revision does not reflect that either the aforesaid car bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090 was being used in carrying the essential commodity or any quantity of L.P.G. has been recovered from the said car therefore, this Court is of the view that the vehicle in question, by no stretch of imagination, can be confiscated in exercise of power under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955.

24. This court finds that since the order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah and the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, are not in conformity with the provisions made under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955, the said orders, to the extent of confiscation of the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P. 75 S 0090, can not sustain in the eyes of law.

25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 191 of 2023 ( State Vs. Ashish Savita and others) and the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024, to the extent of confiscation of the Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. U.P. 75 S 0090, are hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to release the car of the revisionist bearing Registration No. U.P.75S0090, forthwith. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad