JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petitions is directed against the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2010 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the District Collector, Sriganganagar in Case No. 304/2009 directing release of the vehicle on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- as fine, stands dismissed. 2. The petitioner's vehicle carrying essential commodity was ordered to be confiscated by the District Collector, Sriganganagar under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the Act"), however, it was ordered that if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- i.e. the market price of the vehicle as fine in lieu of the confiscation, then the vehicle shall stand released. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the District Collector, Sriganganagar, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 6C of the Act before the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. The appeal has been dismissed by the order impugned as barred by limitation. The Appellate Court observed that the order was passed by the District Collector, Sriganganagar in presence of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the order dated 11.3.2010 and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know about the order impugned in appeal on 5.5.2010 and thereafter immediately the appeal was filed. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal is bojnn fide and therefore, in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be condoned. That apart, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge that the essential commodity i.e. diesel was being carried in the vehicle without valid permit and therefore, the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated. 5. It is true that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation by 35 days, but then there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. The explanation furnished by the petitioner explaining the delay remained uncontroverted. It is settled law that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the former to be preferred. The explanation furnished by the petitioner explaining the delay remained uncontroverted. It is settled law that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the former to be preferred. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, the Court below should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 6. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 4.6.2010 is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. the Court below is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******