BHARAT TRADING CO. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Criminal Revisions are directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Cachar, in Criminal Appeal No. 47(2) of 1982, arising out of the order of confiscation dt. June 10, 1982, passed by the Collector, Cachar, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(hereinafter called the Act). Criminal Revision No - 188 of 1982 is filed by the firms M/s. Bharat Trading Company and M/s. Jain Trading Company, both of Panpati, Silchar Town and Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1982 is filed by the State of Assam.

(2.) BY an order dt. June 10, 1982, the Collector. Cachar. confiscated 7099 tins of refined rapeseed oil seized on 6 -5 -1982 from the stock of the two firms under Section 6A of the Act on being satisfied that there has been contravention of Sub -clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 8 of the Assam Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers (Licensing and Control) Order, 1977(briefly called the Control Order). After affording the parties an opportunity of being heard as provided under Section 6B of the Act, the Collector, Cachar, passed the order of confiscation. The two firms aggrieved by the said order of confiscation under Section 6A preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Cachar, as the judicial authority appointed under Section 6C. The Sessions Judge, Cachar, by his order passed on 29 -7 -1982 virtually held that there was no contravention of the Control Order, but in view of a police case being registered at the Silchar Police Station for prosecution under the Act for contravention of the Control Order, the. sale proceeds of rapeseed oil seized on 6 -5 -1982 were ordered to be deposited in the State Bank of India in the name of the Deputy Commissioner, Silchar, to be paid to the firms, in case the prosecution ends in their favour. It was further ordered that in case the prosecution succeeds, the sale proceeds would stand forfeited to the State Government. Both the parties, the two firms, and the State of Assam, being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, have filed revisions to this Court as stated above - The two firms challenge the latter part of the order while the State of Assam challenge the finding that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Control Order. These two revisions which were heard together are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) TO appreciate the contentions of the parties it may be necessary to state a few facts which have a bearing on the questions.