NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Nand Kishore is an owner of a Printing Press, whose premises were raided by the Enforce ment Squad on April 25, 1981. Papers and exersise books were seized from the Press. The enforcement-party lodged a report aga inst the applicant under Section 3|7 of the Essential Commodities Act for infringement of the relevant control order. It appears that on May 25, 1981. an application was filed by the applicant claiming to be the owner of the seized Printing Press and praying that the same may be released in, his favour. This prayer did not find favour with the Collector who had passed the im pugned order on August 28, 1981. An ap peal filed by Sri Nand Kishore against the said order was dismissed on October 24, 1981, hence this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at considerable length and have also scrutinized the entire record of the case, which was summoned by me. Before dealing with the submission made on behalf of the applicant, it is neces sary to a give a few dates. As already mentioned, the premises were raided on April 2,5, 1981. The owner filed an applica tion for release of the seized property on May 26, 1981. Notice was served on the applicant on June 30, 1981. A reply qua forfeiture proceeding was filed by the ap plicant on July 3, 1981. The order sheet of the Collector indicates that the report had reached the court on July 31. 1381 through the A. P. O. The date fixed for dealing with the same was August 14, 1981. This application dated May 26, 1981 was heard on August 14, 1981. Counsel for the applicant was present on that date as recorded in the order-sheet. His argument was also heard. Thereafter, it was directed that the case would be put up for orders on August 28, 1931; on this last date the impugned order was passed. Counsel for the applicant made three submissions. His first submission is that he was not given a reasonable opportunity prior to the passing of the order under Sec. 6-A (2) for the sale of the papers that have been seized from his premises. In view of the sequence of dates, which I have narrated above, and which have been taken from the order-sheet of the case, I do not think there is any merit in this submission. The appli cant had filed application on May 26, 1981, that was for consideration before the Col lector, who had received a report of the A. P. O. in connection with the raids. He had fixed August. 1981 for hearing, given an opportunity to the counsel,. heard the argu ments and then passed orders on August 28, 1981. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this submission. The second point raised by the appli cant's counsel is that the power under Sec tion 6-A (2) can be exercised only with res pect to 1,hat property which the Collector proposes to confiscate under Section 6-A (1 ). On a perusal of Section 6-A, there can be no doubt that two powers have been given to the Collector under that section, when the seizure of any property is reported to him. He has been empowered to direct that the essential commodities so seized to be pro duced before him for inspection and if in his opinion there has been any contraven tion of any order, then he can pass an order of confiscation. Section 6-B provides the procedure to be adopted by the Collector while passing the order of confiscation. It indicates that after the issue of notice an opportunity had to be given to the aggrieved party for contesting the same. The Collec tor after giving him a hearing, had to decide the objection and pass an order either con fiscating the property or refusing to confis cate the property. If an order is passed by him confiscating the property then Section 6-C gives a further right: of appeal to the aggrieved party. Thereafter the order be comes final. This is the procedure prescrib ed for confiscating the goods, which are seized during the course of a raid. Section 6-A (2) vests the Collector with the power of passing interim orders with respect to the seized property. It directs that if on receiving a report of seizure, or on his own inspection of he essential com modity, he is of the opinion that the essen tial commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest, then he can direct the said commodity to be sold at the controlled price. The sale-price shall remain in depo sit under sub-section 6 of Section 6-A (2) of the Act and it abides the result of the con fiscation proceeding. It is thus clear that Section 6-A (2) merely invests power in the Collector in the nature of passing an inter locutory order for the disposal of the property which is subject to speedy or natural decay, or with respect to which the interest of jus tice requires a passing of an interim order. Thus it is very clear that the proceed ings for confiscation and the proceeding con cerning seizures and sale are two different powers which have been vested in the Col lector for different purposes. The interim orders passed under Section 6-A (2) cannot be treated independent of the result of the case. They are passed for a different pur pose, for avoiding loss to the party con cerned. As a matter of fact, they protect the interest of the aggrieved party. The amount deposited as a result of the sale effected there under is payable to the owner in case the proceedings for confiscation are dropped and he is not found guilty but is his guilt is established, then. ipso facto the amount is confiscated to the State. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in; the second submission also. The last submission made by the appli cant's counsel is that unless the Collector is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, the should not exercise his powers of dispo sal of property under Section 6-A (2) of the Act I have very carefully perused the order of the Collector in this connection and I find that he has recorded a finding that on the material before him, there has been infringe ment of the control order concerned. This point therefore, loses its importance in the circumstances of the present case, and does not require any expression of opinion by me, I would, however, like to make it clear that any observation made by me in this case while considering the question of law and facts involved will not in any manner prejudice the applicant in the proceedings for confiscation which are pending before the Collector. For the reasons given above, this revision application is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on Janu ary 13, 1982 is vacated. The record of the case shall be dispatched to the court below within 15 days from today to enable speedy disposal of the case. .