RAJESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A. G. A. and also perused the materials on record.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought for quashing the order dated 13-2-2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2006, Munna v. State of U. P. , whereby holding that in view of the arrangement made in Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') Sessions Judge has not been notified to be the judicial authority having jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Simultaneously order of the District Collector making forfeiture of the seized goods in exercise of the powers under Section 6-A of the Act of 1955' in the Case No. 892 of 2005 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 I. P. C. police station Chhaijlet District Moradabad has also been challenged.

(3.) THE question which falls for determination in this case is whether the provisions of the Act with regard to the seizure and disposal of the appeal would stand revived and further what would be the effect of the aforesaid notification issued under the Act and which became dormant after enforcement of the Special Act. On fair reading of the provisions of the Special Act, it is clear that the arrangements made for the disposal of the appeal by the State Government would come to an end after the Special Act lapsed by efflux of time. The provisions of the Special Act were introduced for temporary period. In order to expedite the process of the prosecutions under the Act of 1955 it was proposed to provide: (i) for the trial, a summary way, of all offences under that Act; and (ii) for the constitution, for the purpose of such trial, of Special Courts, consisting of a single Judge who shall be appointed by a High Court and who shall be a person who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court or who is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, for not less than one year. (b) to strengthen the penal provisions of the principal Act with a view of deterring persons indulging in hoarding and blackmarketing in essential commodities from contravening the provisions of the principal Act, it is proposed to provided for: (i) minimum mandatory imprisonment for a period of not less than three months for all offences under the principal Act except an offence of abetment in regard to procuring of foodstuffs or drugs by them for their own use or for the use of any member of their family, and not for the purpose of carrying on any, business or trade which is proposed to be punishable with fine only; (ii) enhancement of the term of imprisonment awardable in case of conviction in a summary trial from one year to two years; (iii) making of all offences under the principal Act to be non-bailable; (iv) granting of bail by the trial Court after giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application and only in the exceptional cases specified in the new Section 12-AA proposed to be inserted, to a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence under the principal Act if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of the offence concerned; and (c) In order to ensure availability of essential commodities to the consumers provision is being made: (i) for sale of all seized essential commodities, the retail sale prices whereof have been fixed by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, through the public distribution system by enlarging the scope of Section 6-A (2 ). The existing provision covers only foodgrains to be sold through fair price shops; and (ii) for preferring appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the Collector of a district to the State Government instead of to a judicial authority.