Back
1982 Supreme(All) 569
High Court Of Allahabad
B. N. Katju, A. Srivastava, JJ.
State Of U. P. : Appellant
Versus
Ram Autar Jaiswal : Respondent
Cr. Rev. No 431 of 1981 connected with Cr. Rev. No. 1045 of 1981
Decided On : Aug 11, 1982
Radhey Shyam
An appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act lies only against an order of confiscation under Section 6-A(1), not against an order of sale under Section 6-A(2).
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - APPEAL - SECTION 6-C - ORDER OF CONFISCATION - ORDER OF SALE - DISTINCTION - NO APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF SALE UNDER SECTION 6-A(2) - REVISIONAL POWERS - NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST COLLECTOR'S ORDER UNDER SECTION 6-A(2).
Fact of the Case:
The Collector, Allahabad, passed orders under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, directing the sale of seized foodgrains and cement, considering them subject to speedy and natural decay and in the public interest. Aggrieved parties filed appeals before the Sessions Judge under Section 6-C of the Act, challenging these orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act lies only against an order of confiscation under Section 6-A(1), not against an order of sale under Section 6-A(2). The Collector's orders were under Section 6-A(2), not composite orders under both sections. The appeals before the Sessions Judge were not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether an appeal lies under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act against an order of sale passed by the Collector under Section 6-A(2) of the Act? 2. Whether the Collector's orders in this case were composite orders under both Sections 6-A(1) and 6-A(2)? 3. Whether the court can exercise revisional powers against the Collector's orders under Section 6-A(2)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 6-C of the Act provides for an appeal only against an order of confiscation under Section 6-A(1), not against an order of sale under Section 6-A(2). 2. The Collector's orders in this case were clearly under Section 6-A(2), not composite orders under both sections. 3. The Collector is not an inferior criminal court, and the court cannot quash his orders under Section 6-A(2) in the exercise of its revisional powers.
Final Decision: The court allowed both revisions and set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge, holding that they were without jurisdiction.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted:
- Jurisdiction of Appeal: An appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act lies exclusively against an order of confiscation passed under Section 6-A(1), and not against an order of sale passed under Section 6-A(2). (!) (!) (!)
- Statutory Distinction: Section 6-C specifically provides for an appeal only against orders of confiscation, whereas no appeal is provided against orders of sale or disposal made under Section 6-A(2) on grounds of speedy decay or public interest. (!) (!)
- Nature of Collector's Order: The Collector's orders in the cited cases were clearly made under Section 6-A(2) regarding the sale of seized foodgrains and cement, rather than being composite orders under both Section 6-A(1) and 6-A(2). (!) (!)
- Procedural Requirements: An order of confiscation under Section 6-A(1) requires a mandatory show-cause notice under Section 6-B, which is not applicable to orders of sale under Section 6-A(2). (!) (!)
- Revisional Powers: The Collector is not considered an "inferior criminal court" under Section 6 of the CrPC; therefore, higher courts cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC to quash the Collector's orders under Section 6-A(2). (!) (!)
- Bar on Jurisdiction: Section 6-E of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or authority (except the Collector or the judicial authority under Section 6-C) from making orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, or distribution of seized property. (!)
- Outcome of Previous Judgments: The High Court set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge in the present revisions, holding that the Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Collector's orders under Section 6-A(2). (!) (!)
- Specific Case Facts: The cases involved the seizure of foodgrains and cement, which the Collector ordered to be sold under Section 6-A(2) due to their susceptibility to decay, leading to appeals filed by aggrieved parties which were subsequently dismissed as non-maintainable. (!) (!)
B. N. Katju, J.
1. THE State of U.P. has filed Criminal Revision No. 431 of 1981 against the order of the Sessional Judge, Allahabad dated 22-12-1980 passed in criminal appeal No. 130 of 19130 under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and criminal revision No. 1045 of 1981 against the order of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 18-6-1981 passed in criminal appeal No. 46 of 1981 under section 6-C of the Act.
2. THE facts in criminal revision No. 431 of 1981 are as follows :- On 17-7-1980 the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) Allahabad seized 55 bags and one Katta of wheat, one bag of rice and one bag of Keshari on suspicion that it was being; stored for sale in black market in contravention of U. P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing) Order and Pulses and Edible Oil (Storage Central) Order punishable under Section 7 of the Act and reported the matter to the Collector Allahabad under Section 6-A (1) of the Act. THE Collector Allahabad by his order dated 21-7-1980 passed under Section 6-A (2) of the Act directed that; the seized foodgrains may be sold under the supervision of the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) on Government rate and the sale proceeds may be deposited in the Government treasury according to law as the foodgrains were subject to speedy and natural decay and it was otherwise also not expedient in public interest to keep them lying undisposed of. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector, Ram Autar Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal filed criminal appeal No. 130 of 1980 before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad under Section 6-C of the Act. THE learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 16-12-1980 allowed the appeal and directed that the seized foodgrains be returned to Ashok Kumar Jaiswal. THE State of U. P. has filed the present revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge.
The facts in criminal revision No. 1045 of 1981 ate as follows:- On 16-12-1980 659 bags of cement were recovered from the possession of Gopal Krishna on suspicion hat it was stored in violation of certain terms of the licence. The seizure was reported to the Collector, Allahabad under Section 6-A (1)of the Act. The Collector, Allahabad by his order dated 13-3-1981 directed the distribution of the seized commodity through the Additional District Magistrate (Civil) Supplies and the sale proceeds to be deposited in the Government treasury as the seized cement was subject to speedy and natural decay. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector Gopal Krishna filed criminal appeal No. 46 of 1981 before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 18-6-1981 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and directed that the cement be released in favour of Gopal Krishna. The State of U. P. has filed this revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge.
3. BOTH these revisions were heard by a Single Judge of this Court, who, disagreed with two earlier Single Judge decisions of this Court in Ram Autar v. State of U. P., 1981 AWC 36 and Sardar Ujagar Singh v. State of U. P., Criminal Revision No. 2005 of 1980 decided on 21-1-1981 and referred these revisions for decision by a Division Bench. That is how these two revisions have come before us for decision.
4. IN both the revisions, the question that arises for determination is whether the appeal filed by the opposite parties in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad was maintainable under Section 6-C of the Act.
Section 6-A (1) and (2) of the Act, as amended by State of Uttar Pradesh are as follows :-
"6-A (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto a report to this effect shall, without any unreasonable delay, be sent to the Collector of the district in which the seizure is made and the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, inspect or cause to be inspected su
