MANNU MAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. Both the aforesaid petition have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order 1-6-82 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1982 as not maintainable and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants contended that deal, an essential commodity] was seized from the possession of the applicants and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hathras, by means of the order dated 13-4-82 directed the sale of the coal and bricks of the applicants so seized. Against that order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1982 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who dismissed the same as not maintainable. Now the grievance expressed is the above petitions is that the learned Session Judge had wrongly dis missed the appeal of the applicants as not maintainable holding that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was an interlocutory order against which no appeal lay.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that if the case of the applicants falls in any of the conditions mentioned in sub-sec-tion (3) of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act the sale proceeds, after deducting the necessary expenses, may be released in favour of the applicants. .