STATE Vs. K GNANASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in Cri. M.P. 68 of 1991 on the file of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madras has filed this petition u/ S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order in the above Crl. M. P. 68 / 91.

(2.) The respondent herein has filed petition in Crl. M.P. 68/91 u/ S. 457 Criminal Procedure Code for return of 4 barrels of Palmoil, each weighting 200 kilograms and 2 barrels of cotton seed oil, each weighing 200 kilograms on the allegations that he is running a retail oil sales shop at No. 380/ 1, Konnar High Road, Ottery, Madras, under valid licence No. 37/89-90 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Civil Supplies) Parambur Zone, Madras and that the above barrels were seized by the respondent police. They were purchased by the petitioner under valid purchase bill. The petitioner was not an accused in Cr. No. 37/91 in which the above barrels were seized and kept in the custody of the respondent. This claim was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the above barrels were seized from the brother and father of the petitioner who are accused in this case, from the premises bearing Door No. 382, Konnur High Road, Otteri, Madras 12, as the premises had no licence and that the oil contained in the barrels was suspected to be adulterated and meant for illegal sale. The barrels were not seized from the shop of the petitioner at Door No. 380/1, Konnur High Road, Otteri, Madras, as alleged. Samples of oil were taken and sent to Public Analyst, King Institute, Guindy and the result is awaited. During the pendency of the petition, before the learned Special Judge the Special Public Prosecutor had filed same submitting that Analyst report had been received on 12-3-91 wherein it was found that the sample of Palmoil was not adulterated whereas sample of cotton seed oil was adulterated. On a consideration of the materials placed before him, the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Madras has allowed the petition in part holding that petitioner is entitled to return of four barrels of Palmoil from the respondent and dismissed the petition with regard to the claim for return of two barrels of cotton seed oil. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has come forward with this petition u/ S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate would contend that there is bar u/ S. 6(E) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (which I shall hereinafter call as "the Act") for the court to make orders with regard to the release of the Essential Commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or the person from whom it was seized even before the termination of the prosecution. For centre, Mr. P. Chidambara Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that petitioner was not an accused in the case and that there isa difference between the words "release" and "return" and there is no bar in any of the provisions of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 for returning the articles to a third party.