SARDAR UJAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6-3-1980 at about 9 a. m., 5 bags of sugar weighing about 4 quintals and one drum of Kerosene oil measuring about 80 litres was seized from the hotel of the applicant Sardar Ujagir Singh at Nausar crossing Gorakhpur under Section 3 of the Essential Commodi­ties Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gorakhpur directed that the said sugar and kerosene oil be sold by the Supply Officer of the Area through some fair price shop and sale proceeds be deposited in Court for being dis­posed of in accordance with law ac­cording to the decision of the case. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar an appeal was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur under Sec­tion 6 (c) of the Essential Commodi­ties Act. The appeal has been dis­missed on the ground that it is not maintainable. The view taken by the Sessions Judge is that since there was no order of confiscation, hence no appeal was maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 27th September, 1980, the applicant has come up in revision before this Hon'ble Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned orders. It is not necessary for me to go into the technical ques­tion whether the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur was com­petent or not, because in the exercise of revisional powers, the Court can always interfere with the impugned order of the subordinate Court, pro­vided it is unjust and unfair. I find that in the instant case 4 quintals of sugar and 80 litres of kerosene oil were seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police. The case of the applicant was that it has been stored for the pur­poses of his hotel business. The merits of the case, one way or the other, would be decided in the original prosecution, which has been launched against the applicant. This Court is not in a position at this stage to give any specific finding on facts inter-parties which are in dispute. How­ever, it has been argued by the applicant's counsel that if the sugar and the kerosene oil is sold away the return price of these commodities would not be sufficient compensation to the ap­plicant, in the event of his acquittal in the criminal case. He has prayed that these commodities may not be sold at his risk and may be allowed to remain as they are till the final disposal of the criminal prosecution. Counsel for the State has no objection, if the commo­dities seized from the applicant includ­ing sugar and kerosene oil are not sold and allowed to remain at the risk of the applicant till the decision of the criminal prosecution.