STATE OF U P Vs. PURSHOTTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the licenced dealer in Cement. On inspection his stock was found short by 9 bags. An order was passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad seizing his remaining Cement stock of 231 bags. The District Magistrate directed the sale of the property since it was liable to speedy and natural decay. This order was passed on 19th September 1980. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which was allowed on 5th December, 1980. The Sessions Judge directed the return of the seized bags to the respondents vide his order dated 5-12-1980. Aggrieved thereby the State of U. P. filed this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main point which has been argued on behalf of the applicant is that the order of seizure and sale passed by the District Magistrate on 12-9-1980 under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act was not an appealable order. In this connection, I have been referred to Section 6 (c) of the said Act, which makes provisions for appeals against the impugned orders, passed under this Act. An order of the nature involved in the present case was merely an order of seizure and sale due to speedy and natural decay having regard to the inherent nature of the commodity. The proceeds thereof have to remain in deposit till the prosecution of the respondent for the contravention under Section 3/7 of the E C. Act, finally culminates in an order either of acquittal or conviction. The payment of the amount would naturally abide the result of that trial. Such an order cannot be said to be an order of confiscation passed under Section 6-A and therefore, the provisions of Section 6 (c) would not be attracted and the order in question cannot be subjected to an appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent practically had to concede that the appeal before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable. He could not point out to me any specific provision in the Act, nor cite any case law to support the contrary view that an appeal from the impugned order to the trial Court was maintainable. In this view of the matter the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to allow the appeal on 5th December, 1980 and direct a return of the bags of Cement seized in the instant case. This revision application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the Court below dated 5th December, 1980 is hereby set aside. .