VANKA ANANTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question of law of considerable importance; viz., whether section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(10 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", excludes the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under Sections 516-A and 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code to make an order for the disposal of essential commodity seized and produced before it for contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act. For a proper appreciation of the question arising in the case, it is necessary to set out the essential facts.

(2.) The petitioner is a retail dealer in foodgrains carrying on business at I uni Village in East Godavari District under licence granted to him by the competent authority. On 13-3-1973 he was transporting 94 bags of rice, each bag weighing 96 Kgs in a lorry bearing registration No.A P.A 1411 to Tuni. On the way the lorry was intercepted by the Circle Inspector of Police Ramachandrapuram, at Ramavaram junction and the rice bags were seized by him as they were being transported without a permit or licence, in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970. The Circle Inspector of Police registered the case as Crime No. 18 of 1973 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station under Section 7 of the Act. The same day the seized stock was produced before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramchandrapurm The Circle Inspector in his report requested the Magistrate that since the seized stocks are perishable articles they may be disposed of to an authorised dealer at an early date. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 14-3-1973 directing the Circle Inspector of Police to sell the seized rice bags either to the Food Corporation of India or to the local Co-operative society at the rates specified by the quality Inspector of the Food Corporation of India and deposit the sale proceeds in the court under Miscellaneous criminal Court deposits. It is this order of the Criminal Court that is sought to be revised by the petitioner in this revision petition.

(3.) The problem that poses itself for solution is whether the order of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate directing the sale of the selzed essential commodity is without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. The resolving of the issue roised requires a careful scrutiny of the structure of the Act. The Act itse f was enacted by the Parliament in 1955 replacing the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Act aims at equitable distribution and availability to the public, at a fair price, of essential commodities. The Act, therefore, provides for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce, in certain commodities in the interest of general public. The commodities which were intended to be brought within the purview of the Act were essential commodities as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to make orders providing for the control of production, supply and distribution of essential commodities, if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is neccessary or expedient to do so for maintaining or increasing supplies or for securing equitable distribution of any essential commodity. Section 4 imposes a duty on the Government to discharge the duties and exercise the powers vested in it by the Act. Section 5 authorises the Central Government to delegate its powers under Section 3 to make orders either to an Officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to the State Government or an officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, by a notification in that behalf. Section 6 enumerates 'effect of an order inconsistent with other enactments'.