AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. Heard Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anant Prasad Singh, Standing Counsel No. 15 for the State of Bihar.

2. The writ petition was filed for a simple release of the vehicle but having found the necessity of clarification on the law of the exercise of powers by this Court as well as the powers of the Executive Authority vis-a-vis the Judicial Authority, the matter was referred to a larger Bench that has returned the reference vide judgment dated 1st of November, 2018. It may be not out of place to mention that the Full Bench was called upon to answer the following questions:

(A.) Whether the Collector, who has seized any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying essential commodity, has the jurisdiction to release such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, and if so, on what conditions?

(B.) Whether the separation of judicial and executive functions will empower the Collector to confiscate the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance without trial as the deprivation of a property can be ordered by a Court only after trial of the criminal case?

(C.) Whether the provisions of Section 6-D of the Act, so as to inflict any other punishment after confiscation, would stand the legal scrutiny on the touchstone of double jeopardy?

(D.) Whether the power of confiscation of the goods and the vehicle vesting with the Collector as an Executive Authority can be said to be legal in view of the principle of separation of executive and judicial power and/or that the power of confiscation of the goods and the vehicle can be exercised only by the Court.”

3. The answer to the same has been rendered in Paragraph 50 of the judgment as follows:-

“50. With the aforesaid discussion, Question Nos. 2, 3 and 4 referred to above, stand answered. To tie the strings together, it is, hereby, declared that:-

(A). The provisions contained in Section 6-A to 6-E of the E.C. Act, 1955 do not run counter to the principle of separation of judicial and executive functions;

(B.) Since confiscation under the Act is not in the nature of punishment or penalty, for which separate provision has been made in the Act, the conferment of the powers of confiscation in the Executive Authority, viz., the Collector, does not run counter to the constitutional policy of separation of judicial and executive functions;

(C.) Section 6-D of the Act which provides for infliction of punishment to the offender, apart from awarding the order of confiscation, does not run counter to the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 20 sub-Clause (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and the provisions contained in Section 6- A to 6-E of the E.C. Act are in consonance with the provision that no person can be punished twice for the same offence.”

4. Further explaining the scope of the exercise of such powers including the powers to be exercised by this Court, the Full Bench has held as under:-

“61. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion makes it very clear that no Court, even the High Court under the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., shall have any jurisdiction to direct for release of any seized article during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings.

62. It may, however, be added that Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides power to the High Court to issue writs to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, any order or writs (including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose). Similarly Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which any High Court exercises its jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of