Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier this petitioner had moved before Court vide Cr.M.P. No.710 of 2007 for release of the Truck bearing Registration No.JH-02F 1906., which had been seized in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No.106 of 2006 as the prayer for release of the Truck had been refused by the learned Magistrate and even by the Revisional court.

While the said matter was pending before this Court, the Confiscating Authority initiated a confiscation proceeding for confiscating the said truck and when this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, the said Cr.M.P. No.710 of 2007 was disposed of with a direction to the Confiscating Authority to decide the matter relating to maintainability of the proceeding in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kailash Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2007(3) Eastern Criminal Cases 107 (SC).

Pursuant to that order, the petitioner did file an application before the Confiscating Authority, taking a plea that the seizure of the truck is illegal as there had been no violation of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and in support of his submission, even the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Prasd Yadav (supra) was filed. However, when no order was passed the petitioner filed instant application for release of the truck. While the matter was pending before this Court, the Confiscating Authority-Opposite Party No.2 rejected the plea of the petitioner for the reasons that the petitioner failed to produce a copy of the said decision before him and, thereby prayer for release of the truck has also been rejected, which order was challenged before this Court by way of filing Interlocutory Application.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the truck, in question, was carrying Rice, it was intercepted by the Police who not only seized the rice but also seized the truck and lodged the case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act along with other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, though on that day no order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act regulating Sale, Purchase, Stock relating to Rice etc. was in force. Therefore, seizure, when was itself illegal, the petitioner made prayer for release of the vehicle, but that was refused by the court and even by the Confiscating Authority though the Confiscating Authority had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for confiscation, as there had been no violation of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act and as such the order passed by the Confiscating Authority, refusing to release the vehicle, in question, is quite illegal. The submission advanced on the behalf petitioner calls for attention of the provision as contained in Section 6 of the E. C. Act, which reads as follows:-

[ 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 package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity].

Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any provision of this Act, no fo