Nand Kishore vs State

P.N. Bakshi, J.—The applicant Nand Kishore is an owner of a Printing Press, whose premises were raided by the Enforcement Squad on 25th April, 1981. Papers and exercise books were seized from the Press. The enforcement-party lodged a report against the applicant u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for infringement of the relevant control order. It appears that on 25th May, 1981, an application was filed by the applicant claiming to be the owner of the Printing Press and the seized material praying that the same may be released in his favour. This prayer did not find favour with Collector who has passed the impugned order on 28th August, 1981. An appeal filed by Sri Nand Kishore against the said order was dismissed on 24th October, 1981, hence, this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant at considerable length and have also scrutinized the entire record of the case, which was summoned by me.

Before dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, it is necessary to give a few dates. As already mentioned, the premises were raided on 25-4-81. The owner filed an application for release of the seized property on 26-5-81. Notice was served on the applicant on 30th June, 1981. A reply qua forfeiture proceeding was filed by the applicant on 3-7-81. The order sheet of the Collector indicates that the report had reached the court on 31st July, 1981 through the A. P. O. The date fixed for dealing with the same was 14-8-81. This application dated 26th May, 1981 was heard on 14-8-1981. Counsel for the applicant was present on that date as recorded in the order sheet. His arguments were also heard. Thereafter, it was directed that the case would be put up for orders on 28-8-81; on this last date the impugned order was passed.

Counsel for the applicant made three submissions. His first submission is that he was not given a reasonable opportunity prior to the passing of the order u/s 6A(2) for the sale of the papers that have been seized from his premises. In view of the sequence of dates, which I have narrated above, and which have been taken from the order sheet of the case, I do not think there is any merit in this submission. The applicant had filed application on 26-5-81, that was for consideration before the Collector, who had received a report of the A. P. O. in connection with the raids. He had fixed 14th August, 1981 for hearing, given an opportunity to the counsel, heard the arguments and then passed orders on 28-8-81. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this submission.

The second point raised by the applicant''s counsel is that the power u/s 6A(2) can be exercised only with respect to that property which the Collector proposes to confiscate u/s 6A(1). On a perusal of Section 6A, there can be no doubt that two powers have been given to the Collector under that section, when the seizure of any property is reported to him. He has been empowered to direct that the essential commodities so seized to be produced before him for inspection and if in his opinion there has been any contravention of any order, then he can pass an order of confiscation. Section 6B provides the procedure to be adopted by the Collector while passing the order of confiscation. It indicates that after the issue of notice an opportunity had to be given to the aggrieved party for contesting the same. The Collector after giving him a hearing had to decide the objection and pass an order either confiscating the property or refusing to confiscate the property. If an order is passed by him confiscating the property then Section 6C gives a further right of appeal to the aggrieved party. Thereafter the order becomes final. This is the procedure prescribed for confiscating the goods which are seized during the course of a raid.

Section 6A(2) vests the Collector with the power of passing interim orders with respect to the seized property. It directs that if on receiving a report of seizure, or on his own inspection of the essential commodity, he is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest, then he can direct the said commodity to be sold at the controlled price. The sale-price shall remain in deposit under Sub-section (6) of Section 6A(2) of the Act and it abides the result of the confiscation proceedings. It is thus clear that Section 6A(2) merely invests power in the Collector in the nature of passing an interlocutory orders for the disposal of the property which is subject to speedy or natural decay, or with respect to which the interest of justice requires a passing of an interim order.

Thus it is very clear that the proceedings for confiscation and the proceeding concerning seizure and sale are two different powers which have been vested in the Collector for different purposes. The interim orders passed u/s 6A(2) can not be treated independent of the result of the case. They are passed for a different purpose for avoiding loss to the party concerned. As a matter of fact, they protect the interest of the aggrieved party. The amount deposited as a result of the sale effected thereunder is payable to the owner in case the proceedings for confiscation are dropped and he is not found guilty but if his guilt is established, then ipso facto the amount is confiscated to the State, For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the second submission also.

The last submission made by the applicant''s counsel is that unless the Collector is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, he should not exercise his powers of disposal of property u/s 6A(2) of the Act. I have very carefully perused the order of the Collector in this connection and I find that he has recorded a finding that on the material before him, there has been infringement of the control order concerned. This point therefore, loses its importance in the circumstances of the present case, and does not require any expression of opinion by me.

I would however, like to make it clear that any observation made by me in this case while considering the question of law and facts involved will not in any manner prejudice the applicant in the proceedings for confiscation which are pending before the Collector.

For the reasons given above, this revision application is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 13-1-1982 is vacated. The record of the case shall be despatched to the court below within 15 days from today to enable speedy disposal of the case.