STATE OF U P Vs. S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised. None appeared for opposite parties. Vide this application the State has assailed the order dated 1. 7. 1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti releasing fertilizer in case No. 134 of 1980 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act of P. S. Lal Ganj District Basti, in favour of the opposite parties. The State has raised objection that Sections 6-A and 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act stand as complete bar to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for releasing the property and it is the Collector who has to pass the appropriate orders. Section 6-A sub-clause (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Essential Commodities Act runs as under;- " 6-A. Confiscation of essential commodity- (1) 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 he 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. " Section 6-E which creates a bar to other jurisdiction runs as follows 3- 6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-"whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation there- to, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the judicial authority appointed under Section 6-C shall have and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property. " The Magistrate has not recorded any clear finding that the commodity was not seized in pursuance of the order passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. He has also not considered the implication of Section 6-E of the Act In the case of Sri. Bharat Mahev and others v. The State of U. P. , 1975 Crl. L. J. 890. It was held that the only proper authority for passing suitable orders in cases of present nature is the Collector and the Judicial Magistrate has no power to pass the same. It is really strange that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not realise the importance of the matter nor considered the implication of Section 6-A and 6-E properly and passed the impugned order which he could not have passed. The order dated 1. 7. 1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in crime case No. 134 of 1980 is quashed and if possession has already been delivered to the opposite parties they be called upon to restore the fertilizer to the Court and the proper forum for passing suitable order is the Collector as contained in Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and the Collector is the proper authority. In the result the application is allowed and the order dated 1. 7. 1980 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal case No. 134 of 1980 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act releasing the property in favour of the opposite parties is quashed. .