JUDGMENT

Prakash D Naik, J. - With consent of both the parties, the matters were heard for final disposal.

2. The applicants-State of Maharashtra in all these revision applications have challenged the order dated 23/03/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, partly allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents in these applications against the order dated 21/08/2015 passed by the Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies. The respondents in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 407 of 2016 and 408 of 2016 have preferred Contempt Petition Nos. 334 of 2016 and 348 of 2016 on the ground that the respondents therein have not complied the order dated 23/03/2016.

3. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned orders are as follows.

On 15/06/2015, the information was received that the wheat meant for distribution of fair price shops was loaded from godown and instead of delivering the same to its destination, the vehicles were diverted to Man-khurd. The flying squad of civil supplies department proceeded to Mankhurd and reached at open space near Mankhurd railway station. Trucks bearing Nos. MH-04-Shridhar FU-1835, MH-15-BJ-9903, MH-43-U-2044 and MH-46-AF-549 were parked at the said place. The trucks were carrying wheat which was to be delivered to the registered rationing shops. One person named Manoj Gautam was present at the said place. He informed that he is working as parking collection boy at that place. The contract of parking is with Global System Company. He also stated that the trucks carrying rationing commodity are charged Rs. 300/- per month. Two trucks bearing No. MH-04-FU-1835 and MH-15-BJ-9903 were owned by Riyaz Seth of Masalawala Grain Merchants Association, truck No. MH-43-U-2044 was owned by Grain Dealers Association and truck No.MH-46-F-549 was owned by Raghu Seth of Annapurna Cooperative Consumer Society. It is alleged that; instead of delivering the wheat to the rationing shops, the trucks were parked at Mankhurd with a view to use the wheat for black marketing. The Police registered the offence with Mankhurd Police Station on 16/06/2015 under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 10 of the Essestial Commodities Act, Sections 3, 5, 10 and 20 of the Maharashtra Foodgrain Rationing (Second) order, 1966, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Bombay Rationing Area Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1986 and Sections 10, 10-A, 18-A(2)(3) (aaa) (d)(d)(e)(f) (4)(5) of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Resolution, 1966. The wheat was seized.

4. The drivers of the vehicles and the other accused were arrested by the Police. They were released on bail. At the instance of the Controller of Rationing, the wheat in the vehicles was distributed to the respective rationing shops on 23/06/2015. This was done on the basis of the interim order dated 17/06/2015 passed by the Controller of Rationing, Mumbai.

5. The show-cause notice was issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, which was replied by the concerned persons. Since the order was not passed for a long time by the Controller of Rationing in the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the respondents filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the petitioners have an alternate remedy for redressal of grievances to challenge the final order of confiscation dated 21/08/2015 under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

6. The respondents thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2016 before the Court of Session at Bombay. The said appeals were partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 21/08/2015 passed by the Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies was directed to return the sale proceeds of the wheat in question to the respective persons and confiscated truck be returned to the owner on due identification and