Essential Commodities Act Confiscation Does Not Depend on Prosecuting Vehicle Owner: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Tanker Penalty

On 21 March 2022, on information about illegal transport of petroleum products, a team constituted under the directions of the District Supply Officer, Ajmer, inspected the Palra Industrial Area with the police. The petitioner's tanker was found carrying 40,000 litres of composite solvent, allegedly being transferred into plastic bottles and sold as turpentine oil (para 2). The tanker was seized, an FIR was registered and Section 6-A proceedings began. On 20 March 2024 the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs 23,59,375 in respect of the tanker, and the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer dismissed his appeal on 20 April 2026 (paras 1-2). In the charge-sheet he was cited as a prosecution witness, not an accused (paras 3, 10).

The Court held that the Collector may confiscate a seized essential commodity and the vehicle carrying it once satisfied that a Section 3 order was contravened (paras 7-8). That power does not depend on criminal proceedings against the owner, because Section 6-A applies whether or not a prosecution is instituted; that the owner was not charge-sheeted does not by itself make the proceedings unsustainable (para 8). Proceedings under another enactment, including the NDPS Act, do not divest the Collector of jurisdiction absent a statutory bar (para 8). Section 6-B(2) protects an owner only conditionally: he must prove to the Collector that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of himself, his agent and the person in charge, and that each took all reasonable and necessary precautions; a bare assertion of ignorance is not enough (para 9). Being a prosecution witness did not by itself establish either condition, and the petitioner had not proved them before the Collector (para 10). Denash was distinguished as a decision under the NDPS Act, which has distinct confiscation and owner-protection provisions (para 11). Balwinder Singh concerned release on supurdgi before the Collector decided; here his order had been affirmed in appeal (para 12).