Judgment

AHMADI, J.- Special leave granted.

2. The short question which arises for our determination is whether the Collector to whom a report of seizure of any essential commodity is made under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), is empowered by virtue of Section 6-E of the Act to release the goods seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto during the pendency of the proceedings before the Special Court? The facts, in brief, are as under:

The petitioner being engaged in the manufacture of mustard oil at his factory at 1, Canal Road, Police Station Behala. Calcutta-53, was required to maintain a stock of mustard seed at his factory premises. A contingent of officers of the District Enforcement Branch led by the Investigating Officer Gopal Mosat, the complainant, raided the factory premises of the petitioner on the morning of Sunday, September 20, 1987, in the absence of the petitioner. The said raid continued till the early hours of September 21, 1987. During the said raid 562 bags of mustard seeds and 267 tins of mustard oil, weighing about 39.92 quintals, were seized for purported infraction of the conditions of the licence as well as the orders issued under Section 3 of the Act. The Investigating Officer filed a written complaint in that behalf at the Behala Police Station which came to be treated as the first information report. The report of the seizure of the essential commodity was made to the concerned Collector as required by Section 6-A of the Act for initiating confiscation proceedings. On September 27, 1987, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge. It may be mentioned that before the submission of the charge-sheet a writ petition was filed in the High Court wherein certain interim orders were made with which we are not concerned. Suffice it to say that the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on February 2, 1988, reserving liberty to the petitioner to apply for release of the seized goods to the Collector before whom the confiscation proceedings were pending. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an application on February 9, 1988 under Section 6-E of the Act before the Additional Collector for release of the seized commodities. On March 11, 1988 the said officer dropped the confiscation proceedings, albeit without prejudice to the prosecution pending before the Special Judge, and directed the release of the seized commodities. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of release, the State Government invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The said Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1988 was allowed by the High Court on May 11, 1988. The High Court set aside the impugned order of release of the seized goods holding that under the provisions of Section 6-A read with Section 6-E of the Act, the Collector had no power to order release of the seized commodity. The High Court approached the question thus:

"Under Section 6-A of the Act the Collector has under certain circumstances been given power to confiscate the goods. By Section 6-A the Collector has not been given any power to release the goods. Section 6-E is to be read in the perspective of the provision of Section 6-A of the Act because of the phrase "pending confiscation" under Section 6-A used in Section 6-E. If the Collector has not been given any power to release the goods under Section 6-A, it can never be assumed that by Section 6-E which gives some interim power to the Collector with reference to the proceeding under Section 6-A, the Collector has been given any power to release the goods after finding that the goods cannot be confiscated. Under Section 6-A the Collector may order confiscation of the essential commodities so seized. He has not been given any power to release the goods."

3. Mr P.P. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that on the Collector having dropped the confiscation proceedings