Special Acts like The Essential Commodities Act prevail over general provisions of Cr.P.C. regarding confiscation.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the opposite party No. 1 / State of U.P.

2. This criminal revision under S.397/401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi, whereby the application of the revisionist for release of seized essential commodity (food grains) in his favour has been rejected.

3. Issue
The issue for consideration before this Court is "whether the application under S.451, Cr.P.C. for release of seized food grains (case property) is maintainable during pendency of confiscation proceedings before the authority concerned under The Essential Commodities Act , 1955"?

4. Basic Facts
Filtering out unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to present criminal revision are that revisionist is wholesaler of food grains, pulses and oil seeds. On 10.1.2019, the opposite party No. 2 (District Manager, P.C.F. Jhansi) along with General Manager C.W.C. Chirgaon, Regional Manager P.C.F. Jhansi inspected the campus of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. At the time of inspection a truck No. UP 93 BT 4064 loaded with Urad was found standing there and there was no mark of any purchase centre on the loaded bags of Urad. As such 650 bags (50 kg. Each) of Urad was taken into custody by the officers concerned. The FIR in this regard was lodged against unknown person on 11.1.2019 registered as Case No. 0010 of 2019, under S.3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act at Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi. During confiscation proceeding, the revisionist moved an application under S.451, Cr.P.C. dated 1.3.2019 before the ACJM, Court No. 1, Jhansi, for release of the aforesaid essential commodity (food grains) claiming his ownership, on which police of Police station Chirgaon, District Jhansi submitted report before the concerned Magistrate mentioning that the aforesaid bags of Urad belongs to the revisionist. Thereafter, the aforesaid release application of the revisionist has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 on the ground that under S.6 - A of , 1955 there is a provision of confiscation of the essential commodities and confiscation proceeding is going on before the authority concerned, therefore, the application for release of the revisionist is not maintainable.

5. Submissions on behalf of the revisionist
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that since there is no dispute about the ownership of seized essential commodity (Urad), therefore, same is liable to be released in his favour and Magistrate concerned has committed legal error in rejecting the release application of the revisionist.

6. Submissions on behalf of the State of U.P.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. raised preliminary objection that application under S.451, Cr.P.C. of the revisionist was not maintainable, because under S.6 - A of The Essential Commodities Act , there is a provision of confiscation and the same is going on, therefore, S.451, Cr.P.C. will not be attracted in view of bar contained under Secton 6 - E of , hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Analysis of relevant provisions
Before delving into the issue, it would be useful to quote the relevant provisions of The Essential Commodities Act , 1955 with regard to confiscation of seized essential commodities as well as relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., which are as follows: -
"6 - A. Confiscation of Essential Commodity
Where any essential Commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under S. 3 in relation thereto a repor