Order This petition is directed against the judgment dated 20th July, 1978, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. in Cr.A.No. 109 of 1977 confirming the order dated 10th October, 1977, passed by the Deputy, Commissioner, Belgaum, in No. SB/ COM/SR-35/77 confiscating the seized 40 barrels of groundnut oil and the truck bearing registration No.MHL 2675, which was transporting the same. 2. The necessary facts may be stated as follows: By the report dated 8th June, 1977, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hukeri, irtimated the Depury Commissioner, Belgaum, that at about 11.30 hours on 6th June, 1977, he had seized the truck bearing registration No.MHL-2675 driver by petitioned and in which pttitioner-2 was a cleaner as the same was carrying 7200 Kgs, of groundnut oil. The value of the oil was Rs. 7,000. The oil was being transported from Shri Satyanarayana Oil Mills, Bellary Road. Kamplito M/s. Anant Oil Mills Nippani. He complained that the transport was being made without giving declaration to the Tahsildar, Kampli, regarding transport etc., and hence, he registered a case in Crime No. 45 of 1977 for the breach of sub-clause (2)(a) of clause 3 of the Edible Oils, Edible Oil-seeds, and Oil-cakes (Declaration of Stocks; Order, 1976 (herein after referred to as the Order.) 3. On receipt of the report the Deputy Commissioner issued notices and cause was shewn by the petitioners as to how they had not committed breach of the aforementioned provision. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept the cause shown and directed confiscation of the oil as well as the truck. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Sessions Court, Belgaum, and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal. 4. In reply to the notice issued by the Deputy Commisioner, M/s. Anant Oil Mills, Nipani, represented by petitioner-4, has stated that the transport was made on 5th June, 1977, which was a Sunday, and hence, Form-II prescrised by the said provisions, could not be furnished to the Tahsildar at Hospet, and therefore, it was only a technical mistake. 5. The two Courts below have held that whether the mistake was technical or not, breach of the said provision had been committed and as such, the goods as well as the truck ought to be confiscated. 6. The Order in question came into force on 26th July, 1976. 5. The two Courts below have held that whether the mistake was technical or not, breach of the said provision had been committed and as such, the goods as well as the truck ought to be confiscated. 6. The Order in question came into force on 26th July, 1976. It was amended on 2nd August, 1976, and once against was amended on 3rd August, 1976. As per the amended provision a stock holder who transports edible oils (it is not disputed that groundnut-oil is edible oil within the meaning of the Order) shall make a declaration in Form-II specified in sub-clause (1) of clause 3 before the edible oil is transported. Reference to sub-clause (1) shows that in such a case Form-II will have to be submitted to the Tansildar having jurisdiction over the area. The Tahsildar having jurisdiction over Kampli is the Tahsildar of Haspet. This shows that the sub-inspector of police was wrong in mentioning in his report that Form-II had not been furnished to the Tahsildar at Kampli. That indicates that the sub-inspector of police acted in an indifferent manner and seized the truck without ascertaining whether infact Form-II had or had not been furnished to the Tahsildar as required by the aforementioned provision. 7. In the reply itself petitioner-4 has stated that the transport took place on 5th June, 1977, a Sunday, and as such, the provision in sub-clause (2) (a) of clause (3) of the Order could not be complied with. The records show that a copy of Form-II has been received in the office of the Tahsildar, Hospet. on 7th June, 1977, but that copy does not show whether it was received by post or muddam. 8. Sub-clause (4) of the clause (3) of the Order lays down that a declaration may be made to the Tahsildar either by delivery of such declaration in person or by registered post acknowledgment due. Reading of the aforementioned provisions does not make out that before transporting the edible oil, a stockholder should wait for the acknowledgment receipt in case he had submitted Form-II to the concerned Tahsildar by registered post acknowledgment due. Hence if he has receipt for having sent Form-II by registered post acknowledgment due, he is free to transport edible oil, according to law, on the very day. 9. It is ascertained that 5th June, 1977, was in fact a Sunday. Hence if he has receipt for having sent Form-II by registered post acknowledgment due, he is free to transport edible oil, according to law, on the very day. 9. It is ascertained that 5th June, 1977, was in fact a Sunday. That means that it was a general holiday and the office of the Tahsildar could not have been working on that day. Therefore, the submission of Form-II could not have been done even in person. The past-office also could not have been working and as such Form-II could not have been sent by registered post acknowledgment due on that day. Then, the question is, whether a stock-holder should not at all transport his stock on a Sunday, though the contractual terms of his business of such transaction require that it should be done, as the stock should reach the consignee on a particular date. It is impossible to conceive that law expects any citizen to perform what is impossible to be performed in law. Now the fact that Form-II has been received in the office of the Tahsildar on 7th June, 1977, clearly indicates that it must have been either delivered in person on 7th June, 1977 or it must have been sent by registered post on 6th June, 1977, Anyhow, when once it is seen that it was impossible for the stock-holder (petitioner-4) to submit Form-II on 5th Jure, 1977 before transporting groundnut-oil in that trucfi of that day, it cannot at all be said that petitioner-4, has committed any breach of the provisions of the order. 10. One more aspect that the Courts below have failed to notice is that amendment to section 64 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, (XCII of 1976. which came into force on 2nd September, 1976. The relevant provision as amended reads as follows: “Section 6-A of the Principal Act shall be renumbered as sub- section (1) thereof and (a)……………….. (i) …………. which came into force on 2nd September, 1976. The relevant provision as amended reads as follows: “Section 6-A of the Principal Act shall be renumbered as sub- section (1) thereof and (a)……………….. (i) …………. (ii) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: “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 on 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.” Therefore, it was the duty of the two Courts below to give such an option to petitioner-4 before directing confiscation of the truck. But, both the Courts have failed to do so and that failure has caused irreparable prejudice to petitioner-4. 11. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed, the judgment dated 20th.‘July, 1978, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.A.No. 109 of 1977 and the order dated 10th October, 1977, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, in No. SB/COM/SR-35/77 are set aside. Consequently, I direct that the goods in question, if available or the value realised be returned to petitioner-3 and the truck in question, if the same is available or its value realised, be returned to petitioner-4. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.