JUDGMENT 1. - On request of the learned counsel for the parties, all the three revision petitions are being heard & disposed-of by this common order. The petitions arise out of the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur confirming the order of the Collector, Udaipur dated 4.3.2003 passed u/s. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), confiscating trade article viz; kerosene seized by the police. 2. The necessary facts in each of the revision petitions are stated as follows:S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 771 /2003 :The police receiving a secret information dated 28.8.2001 raised certain "dhabas" behind Suryadev Hotel and found 7 drums of kerosene oil each containing 220 liters kerosene and 80 liters white kerosene in a separate container. The petitioners were found in total possession of 1400 liters of kerosene without licence in contravention of the provisions of Cl. III of Rajasthan Trade Article Order, 1980. The kerosene was seized in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and it was reported to the Collector, Udaipur under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. The Collector gave notice to the petitioners under sub-cl. (2) of Section 6-A of the Act. In reply to the notice, petitioners stated that they had stored kerosene required for the purpose of "dhaba" run by them. They also produced certain bills to show that the same was purchased for consumption in the "dhaba". The plea was rejected on the ground that it was an afterthought. No such receipts were produced at the time of raid. The Collector arrived-at the conclusion that the petitioners had stored the kerosene in a huge quantity for the purpose of re-sale. The Collector by order dated 4.3.2003 while confiscating the seized article viz; kerosene, has directed for its sale and depositing the amount in the State treasury. Petitioners being aggrieved of the said order preferred an appeal u/s. 6-C of the Act, which has been dismissed by the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur. 3. On receiving the secret information, the police on 15.1.2002 intercepted and checked the Truck No. RJ27G0941.On search, it was found that 2770 liters of Diesel was being carried in 13 drums for sale without license. This was found to be in violation of Cl. 3. On receiving the secret information, the police on 15.1.2002 intercepted and checked the Truck No. RJ27G0941.On search, it was found that 2770 liters of Diesel was being carried in 13 drums for sale without license. This was found to be in violation of Cl. III and XV of the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (License and Control) Order, 1990. The seizure was reported to the Collector, Udaipur under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. The Collector, Udaipur by order dated 9.10.2002 directed for confiscation of the seized 2770 liters of Diesel. He also directed to sale the same and its proceeds to be deposited in the State Treasury. The appeal filed against the said order u/s. 6-C of the Act has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.6.2003.S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 737/2003 : 4. On 28.8.2001 on receiving the information from informant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police raided the godown of petitioner and found 3 drums containing 530 liters blue coloured kerosene. He failed to produce license for possession of the essential article viz; kerosene. This act was in violation of Cl. III of the Rajasthan Essential Article (Licence & Control) Order, 1980, punishable u/s. 3/7 of the Act. The seizure was reported by the police to the Collector, Udaipur in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. The notice was given u/s. 6(2) to the petitioner. Petitioner set up a plea that he had stored the kerosene for his own consumption. The plea was rejected. The Collector by order dated 4.3.2003 confiscated the goods and directed for sale of the same. It was further directed that the sale proceeds be deposited in the State Treasury. An appeal was filed against the said order u/s. 6-C of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order of the Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur dated 10.6.2003. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the impugned orders and gone through the relevant record. 6. The scheme of Secs. 6-A, 6-B & 6-C makes it clear that after the essential commodity is seized and the same is reported to the concerned Collector, the latter has to decide after complying with the procedure, set out in Section 6-B, whether or not confiscate the essential commodity. 6. The scheme of Secs. 6-A, 6-B & 6-C makes it clear that after the essential commodity is seized and the same is reported to the concerned Collector, the latter has to decide after complying with the procedure, set out in Section 6-B, whether or not confiscate the essential commodity. The Collector has been given special power to sell the essential commodity as stated in sub-cl. (2) of Section 6-A if it is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do. The scheme of the Act appears to be that though the proceedings for confiscation by the Collector and the criminal prosecution for contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made u/s. 6-A are independent and parallel proceedings, acquittal in the prosecution will amount to annulling the confiscation order. Thus, where, in a prosecution instituted for contravention of order in respect of which an order for confiscation has been made and the direction has been given for sale of the article and further the sale proceeds have been deposited with the State Treasury, the same can be returned to the person from whose possession it has been taken on his acquittal in criminal proceedings. In the instant case, the Collector after recording the requisite satisfaction has passed the order for confiscation of the seized articles. The plea raised in each of the petitions has been rejected by a well reasoned order. The finding has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the appeals filed by the petitioner-appellants. Learned counsel has failed to point-out any infirmity in the procedure or otherwise which calls for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. No case is made out for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction in any of the three petitions. 7. Consequently, all the three revision petitions stand dismissed.Revision petitions dismissed. *******