The main legal point established in the judgment is that any order passed under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act is appealable under Section 6(C), and the word 'release' in Section 6(E) is used in the limited sense of release for sale.

1. This revision petition is filed to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I Thiruvallur in connection with the order dated 15.09.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.2387 of 2012, and to direct the respondent to return the vehicle TATA ACE HT bearing Registration No.TN-76-U-8233 to the custody of the petitioner herein.

2. The revision has been filed challenging the order of dismissal dated 15.09.2012 refusing to release the vehicle TATA ACE HT bearing Registration No.TN-76-U-8233 to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the confiscation proceedings, though stated to have been proceeded, has neither been proceeded nor the revision petitioner served with any notice. Therefore, the order refusing to the release of the vehicle is not correct.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relying on the counter would contend that already necessary proceedings have been initiated under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. Any order passed to release the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings is against the provision of 6 (E) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the legal right of the appellate authority is taken away by the Court. He would also contend that the vehicle has been handed over to the Deputy Commissioner (North), Food Supplies Chepauk, Chennai for confiscation proceedings. Similarly, the four barrel of 700 litres of diesel transported without any proper documents is also confiscated. Therefore, any order passed now pending the confiscation proceedings is in violation of Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act.

5. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also relied upon an un-reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23rd July 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1075-76 of 2012 (State of Bihar and another versus Arvind Kumar and another), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracting the decision passed in (2008) 5 SCC 502 (Oma Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others), has held that any order passed under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act is appealable under Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, to consider an application for the release of the goods is totally un-warranted atleast at that stage.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision made in Criminal Appeal Nos.1075-76 of 2012 (State of Bihar and another versus Arvind Kumar and another) dated 23rd July 2012 in paragraph nos. 9 and 12 has held as follows:

"9. This Court while dealing with a similar issue in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 549, held that whenever any essential commodity is seized, pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector has no power to order release of the commodity in favour of the owner. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and purpose of the stature and the mischief it seeks to guard, it was further held that the word "release" in Section 6-E is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc. so that the same becomes available to the consumer public. The court held as under:

"...No unqualified and unrestricted power has been conferred on the Collector of releasing the commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood completed and before the termination of the prosecution in the acquittal of the offender. Such a view would render Clause (b) of Section &(1) totally nugatory and would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act. The view that the Act itself contemplates a situation which would render Section 7(1)(b) otiose where the essential commodity is disposed of by the Collector under Section 6-A(2) is misconceived. Section 6-A does not empower the Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, a fine not exceeding the market value of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of any animal