Ram Autar and Others vs State of U.P.

Murlidhar, J.—This is a revision by the dealer from an order of the Sessions Judge by which his appeal against an order in proceedings u/s 6A Essential Commodities Act was rejected as not maintainable.

The brief, relevant facts are that 115 quintals of vacuum pan sugar and 5 quintals of Khan sari are said to have been seized from the revisionists on 27-2-80. As the quantity was in excess of that permissible to be stocked by a wholesale sugar dealer a case u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act was registered against the revisionists and the seizure was reported to the Collector u/s 6A of the Act. The Collector holding that the commodity was subject to speedy and natural decay and called for expeditious disposal, directed the vacuum pan sugar to be given to fair price shop for distribution to ration card holders at the rate fixed by the Government and the Khan sari to be sold to the licensed dealer at the government rate and for the amount to be deposited under the Head Criminal Deposits Miscellaneous to be disposed of according to the decision in the criminal case. In an appeal against this order the State raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable and the same was upheld by the Sessions Judge on the ground that Section 6C permits an appeal against an order of confiscation passed u/s 6A(1) but not against an order of disposal of an essential commodity subject to decay in accordance with Section 6A Clause (2). The present was held to be an order of this variety and, therefore, not appeal able.

Having heard the learned Counsel I am of opinion that the order of the Sessions Judge is unsustainable. The view that Section 6C permits an appeal only against confiscation of the seized property u/s 6A(1) and not an order of disposal of the reported commodity u/s 6A(2) on the ground of its being liable to speedy and natural decay and public interest is correct. But it must be emphasized that an order of confiscation u/s 6A(1) for purposes of appeal u/s 6C must on general principles include an order refusing to confiscate or refusing to exercise the powers of confiscation u/s 6A(1) for any reason. So an order by the Collector by which he does not pass any confiscation order and merely directs that the property be dealt with by the court concerned would also be an order u/s 6A(1) against which an appeal would lie. The order u/s 6A(2) is limited to saving the property from decay. What is important is that an order u/s 6A(2) is not a final order of confiscation u/s 6A(1) in the sense of being an order of confiscation or refusal to confiscate. This is clear from Section 6A(3)(a) which refers to the contingency of an ultimate order of confiscation u/s 6A(1) when the commodity has been sold u/s 6A(2). In my opinion the present is not a case where the impugned order of the Magistrate should be treated to be an order u/s 6A(2) because it is not merely an order for sale of the essential commodity to save it from decay. It is a composite order where the Collector has exercised the power conferred upon him by Section 6A(2) as well as 6A(1) without specifying the provision under which he was acting. Since the direction that the seized commodity be disposed of according to the directions of the court terminates the proceedings u/s 6A(1) this order becomes an order u/s 6A(1). The direction to sell the sugar in the manner given in the order also becomes a part of this order merging in it and is not severable as an order u/s 6A(2). The appeal would, therefore, lie from the whole order. It is not possible to say that it must be confined to the propriety of the directions regarding the final disposal of the proceeds. In this view of the matter the case must go back to the Sessions Judge for disposal of the appeal.

The revision is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge is set aside. The case is remained to the Addl. Sessions Judge concerned for disposal of the appeal on merits in the light of the observations made in this order.