The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person acquitted of charges and with a confiscation order set aside is entitled to the price of auction-sold goods and reasonable interest thereon as per Section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act.

D. S. Dhaliwal, J.

1. This writ petition is for issuing a direction to the respondents directing them to pay interest in respect of the price of the essential commodities seized from the petitioners custody and auction sold under their orders on the ground that since the petitioner has been acquitted and the confiscation order has been set aside by the State Government, he is entitled to not only the price of the auction-sold goods but also to the interest there on as contemplated by Section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act (here in after referred to as the Act ).

2. It appears that during the course of a raid on 5-9-1989 certain essential commodities in the form of oilseeds, foodgrains and pulses were recovered and seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was, thus, prosecuted for an offence under Section 7 of the Act Confiscation proceedings were also started in respect to the said seized commodities under Sec.6-A of the Act. The sei/ed commodities were auction-sold on 12-12-1989 for a total sum of Rs.1,35,530.65 which was deposited in Government Treasury. The petitioner was acquitted by the Special judge of the charge vide judgment and order dated 3 ()th November, 1992 and as a consequence thereof the Secretary, food, Supply and Commerce Department, government of Bihar vide order dated 12-3-1993 (Annexure-2) set aside the confiscation order of the Collector, in terms of Sec.6-C of the Essential commodities Act. Thereafter the collector vide order dated 3-11-1993 (Annexure-3) ordered for payment of the sale proceeds of the seized commodities to the petitioner. As no interest was paid on the said amount, the petitioner fiied an application before the Collector, vaishali for payment of interest to him on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of seizure, in terms of Sec.6-C (2) of the Act, which application was dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Junior Counsel to government Advocate.

4. Perusal of the order (Annexure2)passed by the Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, government of Bihar in Appeal filed by the petitioner against the confiscation order goes to show that the appeal was allowed in terms of Sec.6-C (2) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case by the special Judge. Sec.6-C of the Act clearly lays down that in a case of setting aside of confiscation proceedings, where it is not possible for any reason to return the seized commodities, the person from whom the commodities have been seized will be entitled to the price of the essential commodities sold by the government and also to a reasonable interest thereon calculated from the date of seizure. Thus, it was obligatory upon the Collector to return to the petitioner not only the price of the seized commodities but also the interest thereon at a reasonable rate from the date of seizure till the date of payment. Petitioner in this case claimed interest at the rate of Rs.15 per cent per annum which cannot be said to be unreasonable in view of the fact that Sec.7-A of the Act stipulates an interest at the same rate in respect of any amount found due to the Government from any person under the Act.

5. Junior Counsel to Government advocate appearing for the State con-tends that the petitioner is not entitled to interest because he did not press his application for claiming of the interest which he had filed before the Collector as is indicated in Annexure-4, the copy of the order dated 26-9-1994/16-11-1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contended that no such concession was made by the counsel for the petitioner in the Court of the Collector. He further submitted that in case the petitioner had made statement for not pressing the petition there was no reason as to why the order on the application could not have been passed on 26-9-1994 and there was no occasion to keep the