BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ CRL RC(MD). No.628 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7680 of 2019 K.Narayanan, ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Supply Officer, District Supply Office, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent PRAYER :- Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 12.04.2019 made in C.A.No. 18/2019 on the file of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur confirming the Confiscation Proceedings in Na.Ka.K1/ 13108/ 2016 by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur dated 09.02.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Manikandan For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Heard Mr. S.Manikandan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2019 made in C.A.No.18 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur confirming the Confiscation Proceedings in Na.Ka.K1/ 13108/ 2016 by District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur dated 09.02.2018.

3. The impugned order is challenged primarily on two grounds viz., a) That confiscation proceedings suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as show cause notice has not been issued though there is a statutory mandate in terms of Section 6B of Essential Commodities Act.

b) Order of confiscation has been made by District Revenue Officer, whereas, in terms of the Essential Commodities Act, jurisdiction is vested exclusively with the District Collector.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the case file, which would show that notices have in fact been issued. Same was perused by learned counsel for petitioner, who would concede that notices have in fact been issued and does not propose to press the same.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that before the Courts below, the petitioner has conceded to have committed the offence under Section 286 IPC, which culminated in S.T.C.No.263 of 2016 before Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, where the petitioner was found guilty and he paid a fine of Rs.500/-.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to Section

6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which reads as follows:-

“6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.- 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:

...

(2) ...

(3) ...”

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, on a plain reading of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, it is evident that the power of confiscation is vested exclusively with “Collector”. However, in the present case, the impugned confiscation proceedings were initiated and concluded by District Revenue Officer, who is not the Collector, and therefore, the same is without authority of law.

8. In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would draw the attention of this Court to the definition of “Collector” under Section

2(ia) of Essential Commodities Act, which reads as under:

“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(ia) “Collector” includes an Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of S