JUDGMENT 1. - This petition of revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises in the following circumstances: 2. On August 20,1973, an Enforcement Inspector, acting under G.S.R./74 dated March 30, 1973, issued under section 3, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), seized 22 drums of light diesel oil from Sunderlal Bansal, a Proprietor of M/s Bansal Oil Store, Kotputali, district Jaipur (hereinafter called the petitioner) & entrusted the same to one Mohan Lal Jain as a supardar. The seized oil remained under the custody of the supardar for 5 months. Thereafter the petitioner was permitted to sell the seized oil on furnishing security in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- under taking to refund the sale-proceeds to the State Government in the event of the seized oil being ordered to be confiscated to the State Government by the competent authority in that behalf. 3. On seizure being reported to the Collector of Jaipur district, he issued a notice under section 6 B of the Act to the petitioner informing him that he proposed to confiscate the oil as he was satisfied that it had been stored by the petitioner in contravention of law and giving him an opportunity of making a representation in writing within 15 days of the receipt of that notice and making oral representation thereafter on August 12, 1974. It appears that the petitioner did not make any written representation to the Collector, nor did he enter appearance before him on August 12, 1974, to make any oral representation against the notice. By his order dated, February 3, 1976, purporting to have been passed under section 6A of the Act; the Collector confiscated the seized oil and directed the petitioner to deposit the sale-proceeds thereof with the State Government. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge Jaipur district Jaipur. By his order, dated, December 16, 1980, the learned Judge upheld the order of confiscation made by the Collector and consequently dismissed the appeal. 5. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this petition of revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions before me. They are: (i) The collector was not competent to order confiscation of the seized oil without its physical production before him. 5. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this petition of revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions before me. They are: (i) The collector was not competent to order confiscation of the seized oil without its physical production before him. (ii) The notice issued under section 6 B of the Act was a mere formality because the Collector had already recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner had committed contravention of G.S.R./74 dated March 30, 1978 issued under section 3 of the Act. (iii) The notice did not indicate that the seized oil which was proposed to be confiscated also included mobil oil and therefore confiscation of mobil oil is illegal. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and giving the matter by careful consideration, I am of opinion that there is no merit in any of the three contentions raised by the petitioner's learned counsel. As for contention No. (i), learned counsel read out section 6 A of the Act and argued that according to this section, physical production of the seized commodity before the Collector is a condition precedent the passing of an order of confiscation. I am afraid, section 6A is not susceptible of any such interpretation as is sought to be put on it by the petitioner's learned counsel. The relevant words of this section may be quoted here:".....the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized." On a plain reading of these words in the setting of section 6A it will be seen that the legislature has conferred a two-fold power on the Collector in respect of the seizure of the essential commodity reported to him. First, he may direct the essential commodity to be produced before him for his inspection, if he thinks it expedient to do so. Second, he may order the confiscation of the essential commodity so seized, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order made under section 3 of the Act. The two powers are independent of each other. Second, he may order the confiscation of the essential commodity so seized, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order made under section 3 of the Act. The two powers are independent of each other. The Collector may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized, if he is satisfied that there has been contravention of the order issued under section 3. He may order such confiscation without directing the essential commodity so seized to be produced before him for his inspection. Secondly, he may order the essential commodity so seized to be produced before him for his inspection without ordering its confiscation. 8. Turning now to the second argument of the petitioner's learned counsel to the effect that the Collector had already made up his mind to order confiscation of the seized oil without giving the petitioner an opportunity of making written representation and without giving him any hearing in that behalf, and that the notice issued under section 6 B of the Act was a mere formality, I find that this argument is also without any substance. Notwithstanding the fact that the Collector mentioned in the notice that he was satisfied that the petitioner had contravened the order made under section 3 of the Act, he made it clear therein that all that he was proposing to do in the matter was to confiscate the seized oil and that if the petitioner had any cause to show against the proposed action, he could make a written representation within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and enter appearance before the Collector on August 12, 1974, to make oral representation against the proposal. The notice read as a whole clearly indicates that the satisfaction as recorded therein was merely tentative and that the Collector had an open mind in the matter, and that is why the Collector gave the petitioner an opportunity of making written as well as oral representation against the proposed action. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited M.B. Sharan v. Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway and others, A.I.R. 1972 Calcutta 407 , in support of his contention that the impugned notice is bad in the eye of law since the Collector had already concluded that the petitioner had contravened the order made under section 3 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited M.B. Sharan v. Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway and others, A.I.R. 1972 Calcutta 407 , in support of his contention that the impugned notice is bad in the eye of law since the Collector had already concluded that the petitioner had contravened the order made under section 3 of the Act. I have carefully gone through the cited ruling and find that the impugned notice in that case was couched in a language materially different from the language of the notice in the instant case. For example, the Collector in the cited case had mentioned that he was satisfied on perusal of the documents produced before me and hearing that contravention of the order issued under the Act had been made by the petitioner. `Hearing' about which mention was made in the notice was obviously an exparte hearing given to the departmental authorities in the absence of the petitioner in that case. It was on the peculiar facts of that case therefore that the Calcutta High Court held that the Collector had already made up his mind on the basis of perusal of certain documents & a "hearings" at which the petitioner in that case was not present. The cited case is therefore clearly distinguishable. 10. Lastly, the mere fact that the seized oil also included mobil oil, cannot possibly invalidate to the notice. The fact remains that the notice covered the entire quantity of the seized oil i.e. 5000 litres. If the said quantity included some mobil oil besides light diesel oil, this would make no material difference in so far as the order of confiscation passed by the Collector is concerned. 11. For all these reasons, this petition of revision fails and is dismissed summarily.Revision Dismissed. *******