M/S. Balaji Trading Company vs. The State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Balaji Trading Company, a proprietorship firm dealing in industrial oils and chemicals, filed a criminal revision petition challenging a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dausa. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order by the District Collector, Dausa. The District Collector had partly allowed an application by the District Supply Officer, Dausa, confiscating seized articles and directing their sale, with proceeds to be deposited in the government treasury. The petitioner contended that they were falsely implicated in an FIR for an offence under Section 395 IPC. They claimed that at the time of search, the proprietor was in judicial custody, and samples were taken in their absence. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the FSL report indicated the collected samples did not meet the specifications for Diesel Fuel. The petitioner had appealed to the District Judge, seeking re-testing of the seized samples, but this application remained undecided when the appeal was dismissed.
Held
The High Court held that the application filed by the petitioner for re-testing of the samples was still pending and undecided before the District Judge. In view of this fact and the consent of both parties, the Court set aside the judgment dated 31.7.2024 passed by the District Judge, Dausa. The matter was remanded to the District Judge, Dausa, with a specific direction to decide the appeal along with the petitioner's application for re-testing of the samples expeditiously and in accordance with law. The Court directed both parties to appear before the District Judge on 24.11.2025. The ratio decidendi is that a judicial authority must decide all pending applications filed by a party before disposing of an appeal, especially when such applications are crucial to the merits of the case and both parties consent to a remand for this purpose. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal without deciding their application for re-testing of seized samples, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the confiscation order passed by the District Collector is sustainable in light of the pending application for re-testing of samples and the FSL report not confirming the specifications for Diesel Fuel? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the District Judge failed to decide their application for re-testing of samples, which was crucial for establishing the nature of the seized goods. They contended that the samples were taken in their absence and did not belong to them, and the FSL report did not confirm the goods as Diesel Fuel. They relied on the principle that a party should not be prejudiced by the non-decision of a pending application. They sought setting aside the District Judge's judgment and a direction to decide their application. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State did not oppose the petitioner's prayer and had no objection if the matter was remanded to the District Judge, Dausa, with a direction to decide the pending application.
Sections Cited
Section 395
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 03/11/2025 This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.7.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Dausa in Cr. Appeal No. 61/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed which was filed against the judgment dated 2.7.2024 passed by District Collector, Dausa in Application No. 2/2002, by which he partly allowed the application filed by the State through District Supply Officer and confiscated the seized articles alongwith Tanks and directed the District Supply Officer to sell the seized articles and goods in the open market as per rate and the recovered amount be deposited in Government treasury. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Balaji Trading Company situated at Padli Sikrai, District Dausa and
[2025:RJ-JP:44034] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1405/2024] indulged in the business of industrial Oil, Waste Oil, Surry (Lavsa), Bitumen Tarcol, Black Oil, all type of chemical and tyre oil etc. and having its GST registration No. He further submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case, in which FIR No. 260/2022 was registered for the offence under Section 395 IPC. He further submits that at the time when the search was conducted, the petitioner was in judicial custody and in the absence of the petitioner or his known person, the alleged samples were purportedly taken from the premises of the petitioner, whereas the alleged samples do not belong to the petitioner. He further submits that as per FSL report dated 23.12.2002, the sample collected from the petitioner’s premises do not confirm the specifications prescribed for Diesel Fuel. He further submits that the District Collector, Dausa vide his judgment dated 2.7.2024 partly allowed the application and denied to release the seized goods and articles and ordered to confiscate the same. He further submits that the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dausa alongwith an application for re-testing of the samples from the goods and articles seized by the respondent no.
The District Judge, Dausa heard the arguments on the appeal and vide its judgment dated 31.7.2024 dismissed the same, but no order was passed on the application dated 19.7.2024 filed by the petitioner for re-testing of the samples. Thus, the application dated 19.7.2024 filed by the petitioner for re-testing of the samples is still pending undecided. He has prayed that the judgment dated 31.7.2024 passed by District Judge, Dausa may be set-aside and the District Judge, Dausa be directed to decide petitioner’s application as well.
[2025:RJ-JP:44034] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1405/2024] Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State does not oppose the same. He further submits that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the District Judge, Dausa with a direction to decide the petitioner’s pending application. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that application filed by the petitioner for re-testing of the samples is still pending undecided and in view of the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the judgment dated 31.7.2024 passed by District Judge, Dausa in Cr. Appeal No. 61/2024 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Judge, Dausa to decide the appeal alongwith the application filed by the petitioner for re-testing of the samples expeditiously in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Dausa on 24.11.2025. A copy of this order be also sent to the District Judge, Dausa for information and compliance. The Criminal Revision Petition and the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/35
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.