RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioners preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23. 6. 2005 passed by Session Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2001 whereby learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants- petitioners and upheld the order dated 24. 7. 2001 passed by Collector, Jhunjhunu in Case No. 100/2001 under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1955' ).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that on 2. 6. 2001 an information was received at Police Station-Pilani, District : Jhunjhunu from an informer that Kerosene will be transported to Delhi from Jhunjhunu illegally and thereupon at 6. 30 AM a truck was seized near Village-Narhad by the police party consisting of C. I. Nawab Khan, ASI- Narendra Singh and Head Constable-Somdev and others. On search of the tanker/truck, it was found filled with 11000 liters Kerosene, which was of blue and black colour. On enquiry, the petitioner No. 2 (Driver) stated that he is transporting the Kerosene by the tanker under the instructions at petitioner No. 1 (Owner) from Jhunjhunu to Delhi, which is supplied to steel factories in Vazirpura area. No permits or license and bills about the sale or purchase of this kerosene were found with petitioner No. 2. Thus, it was found that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Clause-3 of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980 and Clause-3 of Kerosene (Restrictions or Use & Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993. The petitioners have committed offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A FIR No. 145/2001 was registered at Police Station - Pilani and the report was submitted under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955 to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu to confiscate the Tanker as well as 11000 liters Kerosene, seized by the police. The Collector, Jhunjhunu issued show cause notice to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Collector and after hearing the petitioners, confiscate the Tanker as well as 11000 liters kerosene vide its order dated 24. 7. 2001. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 24. 7. 2001 passed by the Collector, Jhunjhunu, the petitioners preferred a criminal appeal before the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu. The Session Judge, Jhunjhunu after hearing the parties vide its order dated 23. 6. 2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Collector.
(3.) THE petitioners have challenged both the orders passed by the courts below on the ground that the confiscation order could have been passed only when the prosecution has shown that there was deliberate contravention of Clause 3 of Order, 1980 as well as Order, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Clause-2 (e) of the Order 1980, which defines the word "dealer'. According to Section 2 (e), `dealer' means a person, a firm, an association of persons or a cooperative society other than a National and State Level Cooperative Society, engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any trade article whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or agent but does not include; (i) a person who holds or is in possession of agriculture land under any tenure or any capacity and on which he raised or has raised crop of food grains, oilseeds or whole pulses; (ii) a manufacturer of sugar, gur and khandsari; (iii)a producer of pulses and edible oil. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Clause-2 (c) 1993 Order, which deals with definition of `dealer, which is reproduced hereunder: (c ). `dealer' means a person, firm, association of persons, company institution, Organization or a cooperative society, approved by Government Oil Company or Central or State Government or a parallel marketer and engaged in the business of buying and selling kerosene. ;