STATE Vs. ABDUL RASHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Revision cases involve common questions of law and fact and therefore, they are disposed of by a common order

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in both the cases before the trial court. On 30-10-1966, he was found in possession of 79 bags of rice. The police seized those bags and registered a case in Crime No, 295/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court Again, on 2-11-1966, they searched and found in his possession 135 bags of rice. They registered a case in Crime No. 302/1 of 1966 and produced the rice bags before the Court. In the former case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to be hereinafter called the 'Act' and in the latter case, the offence said to have been committed by the accused is under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of Defence of India Rules, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' and Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Act In the F. I. R. dated 30-10-1966, the Orders contravened, according to the prosecution, are the Mysore Foodgrains (Retail) Dealers Licencing Order, 1964. and also Mysore Foodgrains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. In the F. I R. dated 2-11-1966, the contravention relates to the Mysore Foodgrains (Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1965, made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of the Rules.

(3.) After the rice bags were seized, the accused made applications before the trial court for release of the bags to his possession in both the cases as those bags belonged to him. Before those applications could he disposed of the Sub-Inspector of Police made another application before the trial court to permit him to produce the attached rice bags in the case, he-fore the Collector (Deputy Commissioner, Raichur), for disposal of property and for further action. The learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Raichur and permitted him to produce the stocks in question before the Collector (the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur). The accused filed Revision Petitions before the Sessions Judge. Raichur The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the Magistrate by his order abdicated his judicial powers given to the court under the Criminal Procedure Code and the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the provisions contained in Section 516-A Cr. P. C are not applicable to the case has neither any merit nor supported by any judicial decision or any provision of law. Therefore, he allowed the Revision Petitions and has made the present Reference under Section 438 Cr. P. C. to this Court for setting aside the orders under revision