ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Appeal No.6/2008 preferred under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’ hereinafter), whereby it has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the District Collector, Barmer under section 6-A of the Act of 1955, whereby it has directed to confiscate seized kerosene as well as vehicle Jeep No.RJ-16 GA 164. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.2005 at about 11:30 P.M., S.H.O. Police Station, Guda received a secret information that one Daula Ram Kalbi son of Amra Ram, resident of Sanchore is transporting kerosene meant for distribution in the public distribution system in Jeep No.RJ-16 GA 164. On receiving this information, police conducted ‘Nakabandi’ on 08.01.2005 at about 4:30 A.M. and found a jeep coming from Ramji-ki-Gole side bearing no number. The jeep was stopped and on search, 5 drums of blue kerosene meant for distribution in public distribution system were found in it. Daula Ram was not having any licence or permit for transporting the kerosene. He informed the police party that he has received the said kerosene from the petitioner and the same is to be delivered to one Bhoor Singh Purohit. As the seized kerosene was meant for distributing under the public distribution system and the driver was transporting the same illegally, the SHO has found that the action of the driver is punishable under section 3/7 of the Act of 1955, therefore, he seized the kerosene as well as the vehicle and applied for disposal of the same before the District Collector as per the provisions of section 6-A of the Act of 1955. 3. The District Collector had issued notices to Daula Ram and the petitioner. 3. The District Collector had issued notices to Daula Ram and the petitioner. They filed reply to the notices, wherein Daula Ram has stated that the kerosene belongs to the petitioner and he was working as a driver with him and on the day of the incident he was instructed by the petitioner to deliver the said kerosene to Bhoor Singh Purohit, however, the petitioner has denied his relationship with Daula Ram and contended that he has no knowledge about the transportation of the kerosene in his jeep as Daula Ram had borrowed his jeep for the purpose of visiting a temple. The District Collector after hearing the parties concerned, has passed the order dated 11.03.2008, whereby it had ordered for confiscation of Rs.10838/-, the amount received from auctioning the kerosene as well as the Jeep No.RJ-16 GA 164, which was handed over to the petitioner on ‘Supurdaginama’ during the pendency of the proceedings. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the trial court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2009. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact that before passing the order dated 11.03.2008, the District Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner as required under section 6-B of the Act of 1955. It is also argued that the petitioner is ready to deposit the market price of the kerosene seized but the trial court has rejected the said contention of the petitioner while observing that there is requirement of depositing the market price of the vehicle and not the seized commodity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders passed by the courts below may be set aside and a direction be issued to the District Collector that the Jeep No.RJ-16 GA 164 may be released in favour of the petitioner on depositing of the market price of the seized commodity. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the District Collector as well as the trial court have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the District Collector as well as the trial court have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 7. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that before passing the impugned order, the trial court has not issued any notice to him as provided under section 6-B of the Act of 1955 is concerned, the District Collector has taken into consideration the fact that after seizure of the vehicle on 08.01.2005, the application for disposal of the seized commodity and the seized vehicle was filed before the trial court on 27.03.2005 and the matter was fixed for service of notice upon the petitioner and Daula Ram on 28.03.2005, however, in the meantime on 09.03.2005, the petitioner filed an application for handing him over the seized vehicle on ‘Supurdaginama’ and on 13.07.2005, the reply on his behalf was filed in the proceedings before the trial court. 8. The trial court was of the opinion that from 09.03.2005 to 13.07.2005, the petitioner was represented through his advocate and on various occasions time was sought on his behalf for filing reply and looking to the above circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner was having prior notice before issuance of the final order by the trial court under section 6-A of the Act of 1955. The trial court has placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in S.R. Anjan Sethi v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Crl.L.J. 786. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly held that requirement of issuance of notice to the petitioner under section 6-B of the Act of 1955 has been fully complied with. 10. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as per sub-section (1) of section 6-A of the Act of 1955, the petitioner is required to pay the fine equivalent to the market price of the seized commodity is concerned, the same has no merit in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Collector Ganjam & Anr. v. Ramesh Chander Pandhi, 2009 D.N.J. (SC) 340 on which the trial court has placed reliance, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration second proviso to subsection (1) of section 6-A of the Act of 1955, has held that the measure of fine which is required to be levied in lieu of confiscation under the aforesaid provision would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle and not of the seized essential commodity. 11. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the District Collector, Barmer for necessary compliance.