The interpretation of Sections 11, 523, 525 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Rule 9(d) of the Assam Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1959, in the context of seizure of sugar, sale of seized goods, and refund of sale proceeds.

These two applications are by the State and are directed against an order of the learned Magistrate dated 20th of November, 1959. By this order the learned Magistrate released from attachment the quantity of sugar seized and further ordered that the sugar or its sale proceeds be returned to the person or persons from whom it was seized.

2. The facts, in brief, are that these two cases giving rise to these present applications were initiated on the two reports submitted by the Inspector of supply, Kamrup, on 2nd of October, 1959. The opposite parties of these two cases were licensed dealers in sugar and had stocks being permitted to do so under their respective licenses.

The Inspector of Supply visited the premises of the opposite parties and found that the two firms did not maintain accounts properly as required by the terms of their license and he had also received allegations of sale of sugar at high prices in the name of fictitious persons. The Inspector of Supply, therefore, submitted two different reports against the opposite parties to these cases and prayed for issue of warrant against the opposite parties.

The Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup, entertained these two complaints and ordered issue of non-bailable warrants against the opposite parties. The opposite parties were accordingly arrested and produced before the court and they were remanded to custody, as the Inspector of supply had prayed for their remand for the purpose of his completing the investigation. At the time of the visit to these two different godowns belonging to the two opposite parties, the Inspector of Supply had seized certain quantity of sugar lying at these two places. In one case 844 bags and in the other 361 bags of sugar were seized on the 1st of October 1959.

On the 5th of October 1959 petitions were filed by the Inspector of Supply in the court of the said Magistrate, namely the Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup, for permission to sell the sugar seized for the reason that it was liable to speedy decay and also for the reason that freezing of the stock would put the consumers of the locality within the area to unusual difficulty. This prayer on behalf of the State made by the Inspector of Supply was allowed and the stocks of sugar were sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in court. The opposite parties thereupon applied for refund of the sale proceeds to them.

The applications filed in this behalf by the two opposite parties in the two different cases were heard on the 20th of November 1959 and the learned Additional District Magistrate after hearing the State passed an order for refund of the money to those persons from whom the stocks had been seized. Against that order applications in revision were preferred to the court of the Sessions Judge and the same were heard by Mr. C. N. Bora, Additional Sessions Judge, and by his judgment dated 19th of March 1960 dismissed those applications, and hence the present applications to this Court.

3. In the order dated 20th of November, 1959, the Additional District Magistrate has recorded as follows:-

".........The learned Advocate for the accused argued that the quantities of sugar seized in this case are not sugar involved in the commission of alleged offence. The sugar was lying in the godown of the accused who are licensed dealer in sugar. There is no allegation that the accused licensee disposed of this sugar or attempted to dispose them of in contravention of the terms and conditions of the license granted to them by the licensing authority. As such the learned Advocate argued that the seized sugar is not liable for forfeiture in this case. The P. I. (Proscuting Inspector) who argued the case for the prosecution conceded to this. I am also convinced of the force of argument of the learned Advocate."

And, thereafter he referred to Clause 9(d) of the Assam Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1959 and Sec. 7(1) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and came to the conclusion that t