STATE OF U P Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated December 22, 1980 recorded by S. D. N. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Ap peal No. 134 of 1980. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the ap peal and set aside the order of Sri S. A. T. Rizavi, District Magistrate, Allahabad dated July 21, 1980 and directed that 20 bags and one Kattd (small bag) of food- grains weighing 20 quintals and 26 kilograms be re turned to appellants Mool Chand, Harish Chandra and Shanker Lal. It appears that the aforesaid grain was being unloaded from truck No. UP7-4407 at the shop of Firm M|s. Sheoratan Ram Autar, 587, Mutthiganj, Allahabad when it was intercepted by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Allahabad who suspected that the grain was being stored for sale in the black market in contravention of the U. P. Foodgrains Dea lers (Licensing) Order and Rules and Edi ble Oil (Storage) (Control) Order, 1977. This seizure was reported to the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad vide report dated July 18|19, 1980 submitted by Addi tional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies ). The report further disclosed that it was a perishable commodity and so should be sold in the interest of all concerned on that re port, learned District Magistrate recorded the order of disposal in exercise of powers under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Com modities Act. The owners went up in appeal which was allowed by the impugned order. The U. P. State has filed this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the panics and perused the record. The main grievance put forward before me on behalf of the State is that no appeal could have lain under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act against the or der of District Magistrate for disposal of perishable commodities. Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act contemplates an appeal to a judicial authority (Sessions Judge) against an order of confiscation re corded under Section 6-A. No appeal has been provided against such interim order which might have been drawn by a Collec tor under Section 6-A (2) of the said Act which reads as below:- " (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1) is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natu ral decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may- (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any fixed for such es sential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) Where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable dis tribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Cen tral Government or by the State Govern ment, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public. " Sri Anshuman Singh, learned Advocate for the respondents, conceded that no appeal against such order of District Magistrate aforesaid to learned Sessions Judge. Learn ed counsel for parties did not cite any au thority on this point. Obviously, appeal is in creature of Statute. No appeal against such an interim order has been provided under Section 6-A of the Essential Commo dities Act. Appeal could have lain against an order of cortication and not against such interim order of disposal. So the im pugned order is unsupportable by law. Such order of District Magistrate was not without jurisdiction as shown above and as such the order of learned Sessions Judge has to be set aside as no appeal could have lain to him against such order. In State v. Basdeo Bawari and another 1961 Cr. L. J 621, on the report of Inspector of Supply submitted under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, the goods attached were disposed of by Magistrate who ordered the refund of sale proceeds to the owner. That order of Additional District Magistrate was attacked on behalf of the State. The con tention of the State was repelled in the fol lowing terms:- "held further that the subsequent sale of the goods attached, was ordered upon the petition of the Inspector of Sup ply himself. If after the sale, the Magis trate passed an order releasing the stock sized and ordering refund of the price to the persona, from whom it was seized the Inspector of Supply could not object to the order. If the order for sale of goods was un der Section 525 of the Cr. P. C. then, pro visions of Sections 523 and 524 were au tomatically attracted and the Magistrate was entitled to pass order for disposal of the stock. Therefore, the Magistrate who was in seizing of the case, whether on that date he had taken cognizance or not, was entitled to pass orders under Section 525, and the Magistrate who passed the order for refund of the sale proceeds to the pro per person who was well within his po wers under Section 525 read with Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " In the instant case, whether a revision against such an interim order could have lain or not was not pressed before me. Ob viously Section 397 (2) of the Code of Cri minal Procedure inhibits revision against in terlocutory orders in the following terms:- " (2) The powers of revision conferr ed by relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding". Obviously, the order of District Magis trate was not a final order. It was not revisable under Section 397 Cr. P. C. Distinc tion between an interlocutory order and a final order was pointed out in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Pratap and others 1975 Crlj 108, in the following terms:- "7. From the aforesaid decisions it is clear that an order can be treated as a final order it satisfies the following tests: (1) It must be an order which final ly determines the points in dispute and brings the case to an end. (2) It should not be a preliminary or interlocutory order made in the course of a proceedings. (3) It should of its own force bind or effect the rights of the parties in rela tion to the controversy in the proceeding in which the order is passed. " It appears that in that case, the Magistrate disposed of the seized stock of Sal seeds of the contractors under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in public auction. A revision was filed against that or der which failed and. the aforesaid distinc tion was pointed out. So the aforesaid or der was neither appeal able nor revisable and has to be set aside being without jurisdic tion. In the result the revision is allowed. The impugned order of learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated December 22, 1980 is set aside. .