JUDGMENT : (PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) By way of present revision application a challenge is made to order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2002 filed by the present revisionist applicant and the other challenge is to order dated 12.09.20222 passed by the District Supply Officer in Case No. 32 of 2002, which inter alia directed confiscation of goods for value of Rs.81,000/- lying in the godown of revisionist applicant. 2. The brief facts resulting in filing of the present application is that on 15.04.2002, Additional Mamlatdar, Rajkot City carried out inspection of petrol pump of the applicant and it was observed during the inspection that the revisionist applicant had the custody of 30 barrels of used oil along with Bill No. 2. The revisionist applicant had license of petrol and diesel under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration), Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Order, 1981”). Therefore, the merchandise of 30 barrels of used oil was beyond the conditions of the license given to the present revisionist applicant and in view of the same, a show- cause notice dated 16.08.2002 was issued to the applicant by the District Supply Officer to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated. 2.1. Pursuant to the show cause notice, reply was given by the applicant on 27.08.2002 contending that the goods were received from one Mr. Chunilal K. Vora of Bhavnagar City who is in the business of empty barrel, refined oil, lubricating oil and grease merchandise. The goods were kept in the safe custody on behalf of Mr. Chunilal K. Vora. On basis of such defence, reply was given to the show cause notice issued to the revisionist applicant. Prior to issuance of show cause notice, the goods which were seized from the premises of the present revisionist applicant were sent for FSL, wherein it was revealed that the oil contained ingredients of ‘Hydrocarbon’. Therefore, according to the authorities, there was a breach of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. 2.2. In view of the show cause notice issued to the revisionist applicant and the reply given on 27.08.2002, the District Supply Officer passed confiscation order dated 12.09.2002 directing to confiscate 100% of goods for the value of Rs.81,000/-. 2.2. In view of the show cause notice issued to the revisionist applicant and the reply given on 27.08.2002, the District Supply Officer passed confiscation order dated 12.09.2002 directing to confiscate 100% of goods for the value of Rs.81,000/-. Being aggrieved by order of the District Supply Officer, the revisionist applicant preferred an appeal before the learned District Court, Rajkot, which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2002. After hearing both the parties and having perused the material on record, the learned District Court, Rajkot was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal preferred by the revisionist applicant and affirmed the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Supply Officer and District Court, Rajkot, the present revision application is preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Heard Mr. Suren B. Patel, learned advocate for the revisionist applicant and Mr. Soham Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State – respondent. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Suren B. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant that the main object as per the reply given to the authorities was not to breach any Control Order. The goods which were given by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora from Bhavnagar was for storing the goods on his behalf. This aspect was very well explained by way of ‘chitthi’ (receipt) which was subsequently produced along with the reply asserting that the goods were sent by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora. Further the bill issued by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora as well as the statement of Mr. Chunilal K. Vora clearly reveal that the goods were sent by Mr. Chunilal K. Vora from Bhavnagar. In view of the same, the revisionist applicant cannot be said to have violated or breached any conditions of the Control Order. 4.1. It was further submitted that the goods were only for the purpose of storing on behalf of Mr. Chunilal Vora. Therefore, the allegations made against the revisionist applicant were baseless and without any force of law. It was lastly contended by Mr. 4.1. It was further submitted that the goods were only for the purpose of storing on behalf of Mr. Chunilal Vora. Therefore, the allegations made against the revisionist applicant were baseless and without any force of law. It was lastly contended by Mr. Patel that the authorities as well as the District Court, Rajkot has not properly ascertained the issue of law wherein from the FSL report, it can clearly demarcated that the goods in question would not fall under the meaning of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998, but in turn would fall within the meaning of Lubricant Oils and Grease (Processing, Supply and Distribution) Regulation Order of, 1987. However, it was categorically accepted by the learned advocate for the applicant that this defence of not falling in one Control Order and falling in another Control Order was neither taken before the confiscating authority i.e. the District Supply Officer or the appellate authority i.e. the District Court, Rajkot. Regardless of the same it was asserted by Mr. Patel that contention with regard to the goods not falling in Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 was taken in the reply. Therefore, according to the learned advocate for the applicant, there would be an issue of law wherein the goods would not fall under Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 and that need to be asserted . In view of these submissions, Mr. Patel has prayed to allow the present application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Soham Josi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State – respondent has specifically contended that the ground of storing the goods on behalf of Mr. Chunilal Vora is absolutely baseless. In the FSL report it has been specifically observed that there is ingredient of ‘Hydrocarbon Oil in the confiscated goods. Meaning thereby, the revisionist applicant was in possession of the high speed diesel as prescribed in the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. 5.1. Further, from bare persual of the the documentary evidence also it can be ascertained that the goods belong to the present revisionist applicant. With regard to the contention taken by Mr. 5.1. Further, from bare persual of the the documentary evidence also it can be ascertained that the goods belong to the present revisionist applicant. With regard to the contention taken by Mr. Suren Patel about the goods falling within two Control Orders, it was submitted by Mr. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the definition of ‘High Speed Diesel’ would reveal that apart from having Hydrocarbon Oil, the product be suitable for use as fuel in compression ignition engines whereas, in Lubricant Oils and Grease (Processing, Supply and Distribution) Regulation Order of, 1987 the definition would suggest that it should be fuel in spark ignition engines. Therefore, the contention of oil falling within definition of different Control Order is baseless. However, despite the fact that the contention taken by the revisionist applicant on this issue is baseless, this issue is not relevant at all as it is not agitated before any of the authorities. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Soham Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present application is without any merits. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and peruse the material on record, the first issue is with regard to the procurement of goods by the revisionist applicant from Mr. Chunilal Vora. It can be perused from the material on record as well as from the order passed by the District Supply Officer with regard to the confiscation of the goods as well as the order passed by the District Court, Rajkot in Criminal Appeal that the goods were procured from Mr. Vora by the present revisionist applicant. It is also not in dispute that the bills were in the name of the present revisionist applicant. It is also not in dispute that Octroi qua the said goods have been paid while transporting the goods. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity with the observations made in the order of confiscation as well as in the order of appeal with regard to the procurement of the goods by the revisionist applicant from Mr. Chunilal K. Vora. The subsequent development alleging that the goods were only for storage purpose on behalf of Mr. Chunilal Vora are without any credence and rightly rejected by the District Supply Officer as well as the appellate Court. 7. Chunilal K. Vora. The subsequent development alleging that the goods were only for storage purpose on behalf of Mr. Chunilal Vora are without any credence and rightly rejected by the District Supply Officer as well as the appellate Court. 7. As far as the contention of applicability of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the goods which are confiscated had the ingredient of Hydrocarbon Oil and that can be ascertained from the FSL report itself. The FSL report also supports the case of the authorities. As far as the submission made by Mr. Suren Patel with regard to the procedure laid down for the test report as well as the comparison of the petrol product cannot be gone into inasmuch as, this ground was not taken in defence at all while giving reply to the show cause notice or while preferring the appeal. This aspect is only raised in the present application during the course of argument. Therefore, when there is a support of the FSL report qua the allegations made with regard to the goods in question, and there are documentary evidence with regard to the procurement of the goods by the present revisionist applicant, then that cannot be said any infirmity to the observations made by the District Supply Officer while confiscating the goods as well as the District Court while rejecting the appeal. 8. In view of the above, the present application being devoid of merits the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.