VIMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, had prayed for quashing the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, pending against him in Case No. 135 of 1993, in the Court of the Collector, Pali, and for the delivery of the truck No. RNN 7989 on Supurdginama to the petitioner; during the pendency of the case.

(2.) TRUCK No. RNN 7989, which is owned by the petitioner, was checked by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Pali, alongwith the Enforcement Party, in front of the godown of Kriya Vikraya Shakari Samati, Sumerpur, on 7.6.93. At the time of checking, it was found that the truck contained sugar bags. The sugar and the truck were seized. After completing the formalities, the truck was handed -over to Police Station, Sumerpur, and a report was prepared and a criminal case was instituted against Dost Mohammed, Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5(i) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and the matter is still pending before the learned M.J.M. Pali. The Assistant District Supply Officer, also, filed a complaint under Section 6A(i) and (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act before the Collector, Pali, for confiscation of the sugar as well as the truck. The proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are still pending before the learned Collector. An application for the delivery of the truck on Supurdginama and the surly was moved by the petitioner before the learned Collector, Pali, who by his order dated 6.7.93, dismissed the same. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.7.93, passed by the District Collector, Pali, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Pali, who dismissed the same vide order dated 19.8.93, on that ground that the order has been passed under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, no revision petition is maintainable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. Again, the second revision petition was filed but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same by his order dated 1.9.93. The petitioner, also, filed an appeal against the order dated 10.7.93, before the Committee constituted under Section 6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the aforesaid Committee on the ground that the order dated 6.7.93, passed by the learned Collector, is an..order and against an interlocutory order, no appeal is maintainable before the Committee. The petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 6.7.93, passed by the Collector, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the truck has been used for illegal purposes, i.e. carrying 130 bags of levy sugar, and, therefore, he did not think it proper to release the truck on Supurdginama as well as the order dated 10.8.93, passed by the Committee constituted under Section 6(C) of the Act as well as orders dated 19.8.93 and 1.9.93, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, has preferred this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.