JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. 1. THIS is a revision by a dealer against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow dismissing his appeal against the order of the A. D. M. [Civil Supplies] Lucknow confiscating 520 tins of Vanaspati weighing 16 kgs. each. 2. THE relevant facts in this connection are that the applicant had a licence of retail dealer of Vanaspati Ghee in the Cheap Market of Amina- bad, Lucknow. it is said that on 4-5- 74 he sold 20 tins to one Nanak Chand Sindhi resident of mohalla Mowaiya though he purported to have done so in the name of 20 persons. That Nanak Chand Sindhi was intercepted by the police while he was carrying 20 tins on a Thela in mohalla New Ganeshganj. The tins did not bear any price noted on it. It was also found that two cash memos were issued in the name of one person Ram Narain and in this way two tins were said to have been sold in favour of one person. It was also pointed out that there was thus a contravention of the U. P. Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitran [Khadya] Adesh, 1976 issued under Essential Commodities Act. It was also found that after further investigation 500 tins, each weighing 16.5 kgs. were recovered from different godowns which were other than those mentioned in the licence of the applicant. A number of cash memos were also found prepared, which filled all the details except the names of the purchasers. Some contravention was also found inasmuch as the retail licence was not exhibited on the shop. 3. A case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the applicant but later on a final report was submitted against him. 4. HOWEVER, the authorities moved the Collector to take action against the applicant under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. A notice was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why in view of the contravention of U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969 and of the U. P. Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitran [Khadya] Adesh, 1976, 520 tins of vegetable Ghee weighing 16.5 kgs. each be not confiscated. The applicant contested the notice. He denied that he had sold 20 tins of vegetable ghee to Nanak Chand Sindhi. each be not confiscated. The applicant contested the notice. He denied that he had sold 20 tins of vegetable ghee to Nanak Chand Sindhi. He also denied that he had issued two cash memos to one and the same person, namely Ram Narain. He also denied that he had contravened the provisions of the U. P. Fair Price Display and Contents of Supply and Distribution Order, 1971. He alleged that he used to write down the price on each tin by chalk, and that the cash memos were prepared by him in advance to save time as there was rush of persons for purchase of vanaspati ghee in view of shortage. The licence was not exhibited at the shop because the inspection took place at 9.00 P.M. after the same had been closed. 5. THE applicant admitted that 500 tins of vanaspati ghee, which were seized were kept in two godowns which were not mentioned in the licence but his explanation was that he had intimated the supply authorities much before the arrival of the stock that he would store them in those godowns as his present godown would be insufficient for the same. No objection was raised to the same. 6. THE learned A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) heard the applicant. However, he did not agree with him and held that he had contravened the provisions of LLP. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969, or U.P. Fair Price Display and Contents of Supply and Distribution Order, 1971 and so ordered the confiscation of these 520 tins of vanaspati ghee. In revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge while challenging these findings one more point was taken by the applicant. It was alleged that the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) was not competent to pass such order. Such order could be passed only by the Collector. A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) was not such an authorised person. However, a copy of the order of the Collector authorising the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) to take action under the Essential Commodities Act was produced and so that contention was rejected. 7. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge also rejected the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and so agreeing with the finding of the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) he dismissed the revision. 8. IN revision before this court the applicant has challenged this order on several legal grounds. 7. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge also rejected the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and so agreeing with the finding of the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) he dismissed the revision. 8. IN revision before this court the applicant has challenged this order on several legal grounds. The contention of the applicant may be discussed in two parts. One part deals with the alleged seizure of 20 tins and the other deals with the seizure of 500 tins of Vanaspati Ghee. As regards seizure of 20 tins it is alleged that they were seized in mohalla New Ganeshganj whereas the shop of the applicant is in Cheap Market, Aminabad. The distance between the two places is a kilometer or so. The case of the applicant is that he had nothing to do with these 20 tins of Vanaspati Ghee. He had sold these tins that day to different persons and some of them were taking the tins in one Thela and if at all one person in collusion with 20 persons could take those tins, he could not be held responsible. In any case it was a question of fact whether these 20 tins were really sold in black market by the applicant through Nanak Chand Sindhi. Normally in revision the finding of fact recorded by the courts below is not to be interfered with but where the finding is recorded merely on surmises and on no evidence that finding can be set aside. The applicant had disputed that he had sold these tins to Nanak Chand Sindhi. There was no evidence on behalf of the supply authorities that this Namak Chand Sindhi had purchased these tins from the shop of the applicant. There was thus no connecting evidence to make the applicant responsible. It was not possible for the applicant to rebut this allegation by any positive evidence. He produced cash memos which showed that he sold the vegetable ghee to different persons and not to one person. There was nothing improbable in the circumstances if one person might be in collusion with 20 persons in taking 20 tins of vegetable ghee in Thela. 9. FURTHER it may be pointed out that the police according to the allegation of the applicant had submitted a final report about this matter. There was no denial on behalf of the Government about this contention of the applicant. 9. FURTHER it may be pointed out that the police according to the allegation of the applicant had submitted a final report about this matter. There was no denial on behalf of the Government about this contention of the applicant. So when the police or the prosecuting agency itself found no evidence, it is really too much to hold that the applicant had committed black marketing by selling these tins to one Nanak Chand Sindhi. 10. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge had laid great stress on the fact that under Section 6-A the words are, when Collector is satisfied that a contravention has taken place and not when it is proved. There is however no essential difference between the two. One cannot be satisfied arbitrarily. He has to be satisfied on the material brought on record in a lawful manner. Merely by making the allegation, one cannot say that he had brought proper material to show that the dealer had contravened the provisions. In a case of disputed facts some evidence has to be given. Only if the evidence led by the other side is the better order, it can be said that his case was proved. Moreover, the learned counsel for the applicant says that he is not concerned with these 20 tins. He had already sold them and got the price. It is Nanak Chand Sindhi who may be responsible for this offence, if any. The applicant therefore cannot be held liable to have contravened the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act by this seizure of 20 tins from one Thela being taken away by Nanak Chand Sindhi. 11. THERE were other allegations about non-mentioning of the price on these tins by issue of two cash memos in the name of one person. These 20 tins were not seized from the shop of the applicant. So if they did not bear any price, the applicant cannot be held responsible. The same can be said about the two cash memos in the name of one Ram Narain. There is nothing improbable that different persons having same name may have purchased tins. Their addresses are not noted in the cash memos. So it could not be conclusively held that there was only one person who was sold these tins. 12. The same can be said about the two cash memos in the name of one Ram Narain. There is nothing improbable that different persons having same name may have purchased tins. Their addresses are not noted in the cash memos. So it could not be conclusively held that there was only one person who was sold these tins. 12. THE other allegations were about violation of the U. P. Fair Price Display and Contents of Supply and Distribution Order, 1971 on the ground that he had not exhibited licence at his shop. The contention of the applicant was that the shop was inspected at 9.00 P. M. when it was closed and at that time the licence was not exhibited. On the other hand the contention of the supply authorities was that the shop was closed at 6 P. M. There was only allegation and counter-allegation. So it cannot be said as to which side was right and which was wrong, because no party had led evidence in support of their contentions. Hence to hold the applicant that he had contravened the provisions of U. P. Fair Price Display and Contents of Supply and Distribution Order, 1971 was also based on no evidence and as such this finding was not maintainable. The last and the most important point in this case is about the seizure of 500 tins of Vanaspati Ghee. These were seized from two godowns which were not mentioned in the licence of the applicant. This fact is admitted by the applicant. His contention, however, was that he informed the licensing authorities a few days before, that he would be keeping his stock in two other godowns. One of such information of fact was given by him on 22-9- 73 and the other on 30-4-74. The learned A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) in his order admitted about the information given on 30-4-74. But he said nothing about the information given by him on 22-9-73. It may, therefore, be said that it too was not disputed. So it appears that the applicant had duly informed the licensing authorities about the two new godowns from where the stock was seized. 13. OF course merely information was not enough. The godowns where the stocks are kept are noted in the licence itself. In this licence these two godowns were not mentioned. So it appears that the applicant had duly informed the licensing authorities about the two new godowns from where the stock was seized. 13. OF course merely information was not enough. The godowns where the stocks are kept are noted in the licence itself. In this licence these two godowns were not mentioned. If he was expecting to have much stock from as far back as 22-9-73, it was expected that he should have taken steps to get these godowns entered in his licence. So there was clearly a contravention of the provisions of the licence and thus also of U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969. 14. LEARNED counsel for the applicant still contends that in any case the action of the applicant in informing the authorities well in advance about the two new godowns, where he was to keep the expected stock, shows his bonafides and that he never could have any intention of black-marketing and therefore the confiscation of the entire stock was wholly unjustified. There is a force in this contention. The courts below had not given any consideration to this aspect of the case at all. The learned lower courts rather had held that no such applications were given by the applicant. This is against the citation of fact in the order of the A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) itself where he clearly admitted about the receipt of the application on 30-4- 1974. So there being only a technical contravention, a nominal confiscation would suffice. So the confiscation of ten tins of vegetable ghee would meet the ends of justice. 15. ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed in part. The orders of the A. D. M. (Civil Supplies) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are modified. Only ten tins out of 500 tins of vegetable ghee from the godowns of the applicant are ordered to be confiscated. The rest 490 tins or their price if sold in the meanwhile shall be returned to the applicant. Revision allowed.