JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. Affidavit of service be kept with the record.

2. An order dated 12th December, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tehatta, Nadia in S.L. No. 2019 of 2022 arising out of Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 294 dated 19th September, 2022 under Sections 407 /379/120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is assailed by the petitioner in the instant revision.

3. It is necessary to record at the outset that a truck loaded with empty and some filled in gas cylinders were intercepted by one Sanjoy Kumar Roy, Inspector of Police, DEB KPD, Krishnanagar PD Nadia on 19th September, 2022. The driver and another person of the vehicle was arrested on the allegation that the driver and the said other person were unloading domestic gas cylinders on the road near Sundalpur Power Station under Hogalberia Police Station.

4. On the basis of the said complaint police registered the above-mentioned case. Subsequently, the owner of the seized vehicle made an application before the jurisdictional Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for return of the vehicle, which was duly allowed. The petitioner also filed an application praying for return of the seized cylinders, most of which are empty and some others are filled in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the authorized transporter of the LPG gas. It is the duty of the petitioner to load the empty gas cylinders from the distributor to the bottling plant and vice versa. Since the gas cylinders were seized, huge amount of money has not been paid to the petitioner/ transporter and secondly the petitioner is getting threat that his contract of transportation will be cancelled.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the reasons, which prompted the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta to reject the prayer for return of the seized LPG gas cylinders. The relevant paragraph runs thus:

“Therefore keeping in view above discussion I am of the opinion that there is an express bar to exercise the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the Provisions of Sections 6A to 6E of the said Act and this Court at this stage has no jurisdiction to make order with regard to the release of the seized essential commodities. The judgment relied by the Ld. Advocate in Para-15 and 16 also stated that the application u/s 451 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable due to the bar u/s 6E of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, considering all the prayer of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.”

6. Learned PP-in-charge takes me to Section 6 E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which runs thus:

“6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases - Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, the Collector or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned under Section 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of such property.”

7. Next he draws my attention to Section 6A of the said Act:

“S. 6A. Confiscation of essential commodity:

(1) Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to]the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector [may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied] that there has been a contravention of the order [may order confiscation of]:

(a) the essential commodity so seized.

(b) any pa