JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order, dated the 28th November. 1974, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in exercise of powers under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), confiscating certain articles alleged to have been seized from the business premises of the petitioner. A copy of the said order is annexure 7' to the writ application. 2. The petitioner is a retail food-grains licensed dealer under the Bihar Food-grains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and runs a grocery shop at Upper Bazar, Gobindpur (Dhanbad). On the 27th October, 1974, the respondent Circle Officer raided the business premises of the petitioner and seized food-grains, sugar and several other articles, in respect of which seizure lists (annexures 1' and 1/A') were prepared. On the 28th October, 1974, he submitted a report to the Officer-in-charge, Gobindpur Police station, stating, inter alia, that on the 27th October, 1974, he, along with some other officers, had raided the shop of the petitioner and had seized a total quantity of 37.38 quintals of different types of grains: no stock register was found, nor any entry of the grains was shown in any register, and, as such, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the different Control Orders and was liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Act. A copy of the said report is annexure 2' to the writ application. On the same day, he also submitted a report to the respondent Deputy Commissioner enclosing copies of the seizure lists, on or before the 5th November, 1974, a petition for release of the aforesaid seized articles was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who, after having heard both sides' passed an order on that very day saying that the articles be returned to the petitioner on proper receipt. He also directed some of the articles to be released on petitioner's executing security bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount each. He also directed some of the articles to be released on petitioner's executing security bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount each. In paragraph 2 of the said order, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the materials covered by the Act, shall be sold under the supervision of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the A.D.S.O) and the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the treasury. A copy of the said order is annexure 3' to the writ petition. 3. It appears that, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved this Court, giving rise to Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3290 of 1974, which was placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court, where it was urged that there was an apparent contradiction in the second paragraph of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This Court, by its order, dated the 11th. November, 1974, pointed out that, while in paragraph I of the order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered release of the seized articles, in paragraph 2 he had directed them to be sold under the supervision of the A.D.S.O. and the sale proceeds to be deposited in the treasury. This Court felt, that, perhaps, this was due to inadvertence and directed the petitioner to file a separate petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, pointing out the above facts to the learned Magistrate. A copy of this Court's order is annexure "4" to the writ application. 4. Before a fresh order could be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the observations of this Court, on the 21st. November, 1974, the respondent Deputy Commissioner passed an order under section 6A of the Act, saying that, from the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Gobindpur, dated the 28th October, 1974, it appeared that essential commodities had been seized, from the premises of the petitioner on the 27th. October, 1974 and that he was satisfied that there had been a contravention of Orders framed under section 3 of the Act, and, as such, it was necessary to start a proceeding for confiscation under section 6A of the Act. By the same order, he directed the petitioner to show cause by the 28th November, 1974 as to why the articles in question should not be confiscated. By the same order, he directed the petitioner to show cause by the 28th November, 1974 as to why the articles in question should not be confiscated. A Copy of this order is annexure "6" to the writ petition. 5. On the 28th November, 1974, the petitioner filed his show cause before the respondent Deputy Commissioner saying that he holds licenses under the different Control Orders, but on the 27th. October, 1974, his shop had been raided by the authorities concerned and a police case in respect of the said contravention had already been instituted against him. The petitioner purported to justify in the said show cause that there had been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Orders and, in any view of the matter, as a police case had already been instituted and the Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered release of the articles to the petitioner, the proceeding under section 6A of the Act, should be dropped. 6. On or about the 28th November, 1974, a petition was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Chief Judicial Magistrate making a prayer not to release the seized articles as the Deputy Commissioner had already started a confiscation proceeding under section 6A of the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after having heard the parties, passed an order on the 28th November, 1974 saying that he had already passed an order for release of the seized articles and the only question at that stage was of acceptance or rejection of the surety bonds. In paragraph 6 of the order he observed as follows:- “Since order for the release of the food-grains has already been passed and that order in no case bars or fetters the jurisdiction of the Collector in the matter of the confiscation proceeding, the order for the release of the food-grains is not to be recalled. In the circumstances and also because of the report of the Judicial Sheristedar regarding the validity of the security bond, the security bond is accepted. Issue release order at once. In the circumstances and also because of the report of the Judicial Sheristedar regarding the validity of the security bond, the security bond is accepted. Issue release order at once. But this order as has been observed, will in no way fetter the jurisdiction of the collector; in the matter of the confiscation proceeding.” Perhaps, what the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate meant by the aforesaid order was that he had passed the order for release as early as on the 5th November, 1974 and only the security bond had to be furnished by the petitioner; but any such order passed by him could not fetter the Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in the confiscation proceeding as both of them had concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the matter in question. A copy of this order is annexure "5" to the writ petition. 7. On the 28th November, 1974, itself, the respondent Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order (annexure 7') saying that he was satisfied that the petitioner had contravened the different provisions of the Control Orders and the seized articles were liable to be confiscated. 8. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner in are place with the provisions of section 6 C of the Act, who, while, admitting the appeal, rejected the prayer for staying the operation of the order passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner confiscating the articles seized is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Criminal Court had already exercised its power under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in directing release of the articles in question to the petitioner. In that connection it has also been submitted that the articles in question had never been produced before the respondent Deputy Commissioner, which was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 6A of the Act. In that connection it has also been submitted that the articles in question had never been produced before the respondent Deputy Commissioner, which was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 6A of the Act. The relevant portion of section 6A reads as follows:- “Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation there to, it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district or the presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, if satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of- (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity; 10. From a bare reference to the aforesaid section it is clear that whenever there is a seizure of any essential commodity in pursuance of exercise of the power under any of the Control Orders framed under section 3 of the Act, then the seized articles may be produced before the Collector of the district and such Collector may order confiscation, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order or orders. In that very section it has been made clear that the exercise of the said power is not dependent on the fact whether or not a prosecution has been instituted for contravention of such order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, once the matter is being investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the Criminal court will be deemed to be in seizure of the articles concerned and only the Criminal Court can issue necessary direction in respect of the property in question during that period, otherwise there is likelihood of a conflict of jurisdiction between the Criminal Court and the Collector. According to the learned counsel in the instant case, the Criminal Court did exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the same seized articles by order dated the 28th. November, 1974. In my opinion, there in no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel in the instant case, the Criminal Court did exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the same seized articles by order dated the 28th. November, 1974. In my opinion, there in no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the scheme of the Act, it appears that the power of the Collector under section 6A of the Act, is not ousted merely because a Criminal case has been instituted and it is not dependant on the result of the criminal case. This is also apparent from the provisions of section 6C of the Act, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “6C (2) where an order under section 6A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such person shall be paid the price thereof as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government, with reasonable interest, calculated from the date of seizure of the essential commodity and such price shall be determined- (i) in the case of food-grains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3-B) of section 3. (ii) in the case of sugar in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of section 3 ; and (iii) in the case of any other essential commodity in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3.” 11. From the language of sub-section (2) of section 6C it appears that, if the person concerned is acquitted by the Criminal Court, then such person shall be paid the price of the articles seized which had been confiscated as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government, with reasonable interest. This presupposes a situation where the articles have been confiscated under section 6A by the Collector on being satisfied that there had been a contravention of the order, but later on the Criminal Court acquits the accused holding that no such contravention had occurred. This presupposes a situation where the articles have been confiscated under section 6A by the Collector on being satisfied that there had been a contravention of the order, but later on the Criminal Court acquits the accused holding that no such contravention had occurred. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Bench of this court in Lowa Tanti alias Loba Tanti v. The State of Bihar, 1, 1976 BBCJ 1 where it was held that the power of confiscation is not to await the result of the criminal Case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid case. In that connection I may point out that on facts the two cases are different. In that case the Criminal Court had directed release of the articles seized. The Deputy Commissioner, while exercising the powers under section 6A, passed an order confiscating the property without taking any steps for bringing to the notice of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, the fact that a confiscation proceeding was pending. In that circumstance, this Court was of the opinion that two conflicting orders had been passed by the Criminal Court and the Deputy Commissioner, and this Court quashed the order of confiscation saying that it would be open to the Collector to move the Criminal Court for modification of the order passed by it and then to proceed with the confiscation proceeding in respect of the goods in question. In the instant case, as pointed out above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while passing the order of release had made it dear that that was not to fetter the power of the Deputy Commissioner in the matter of confiscation proceeding. 12. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Kishori Lal Bihari v. The Addl. Collector & Dist. Magistrate, Kanpur 2, AIR 1969 Allahabad 159 where it was pointed out that orders under section 6A are provisional and subject to the orders passed by Courts and while passing order under section 6A, it is the duty of the Collector to find out as to whether there had been a contravention of the provisions of the order or not. In my opinion, this case does not in any way help the petitioner. In my opinion, this case does not in any way help the petitioner. I have myself already held that any finding regarding the contravention of the provisions of the order by the Collector is not binding so far as the Criminal Court is concerned; rather, if the Criminal Court takes a contrary view at the trial in view of sub-section (2) of section 6C, that judgment will prevail. But, so far as the confiscation proceedings are concerned, they are not to be declared a nullity. The only relief that can be given in such circumstances to the person concerned is to pay him the price, together with reasonable interest, for the articles seized and confiscated as if they had been sold to Government. In my opinion, in the instant case, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction merely because the Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed an order for release of the goods in favour of the petitioner, in view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case as indicated above. 13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the articles seized were never produced before the respondent Deputy Commissioner, which was a condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 6A of the Act, is concerned, our attention was drawn to the words "where any essential commodity is seized...it may be produced, without any unreasonable delay, before the Collector of the district”. The words “it may be produced” occurring in section 6A of the Act, in my opinion have to be so interpreted as to cover cases in which, due to the nature of the article seized, it may not be possible to produce it before the Collector. It cannot be conceived that the intention of Parliament was that, before the power under that section could be exercised, the seized food-grains, which might weigh even several thousand quintals in some cases, have to be physically produced before the Collector. It cannot be conceived that the intention of Parliament was that, before the power under that section could be exercised, the seized food-grains, which might weigh even several thousand quintals in some cases, have to be physically produced before the Collector. In my view, this does not mean physical production of the articles in question in every case what it means is that the seizure of the articles in question should be reported to the Collector of the district who may apply his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case; and, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the order in question, he may, after complying with the requirements of sections 6A and 6B of the Act, confiscate the goods in question. 14. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that, after the seizure on the 27th. October, 1974, the seized articles were kept in Jimanama of the petitioner and the seizure lists were forwarded to the Collector with a request that the seized commodities may be confiscated. In the order, dated the 21st. November, 1974 the respondent Deputy Commissioner had also stated that, from the report, dated the 28th. October, 1974, of the Anchal Adhikari, Gobindpur, it appeared to him that the articles detailed therein had been seized from the godown of the petitioner on the 27th. October, 1974 and he was satisfied that a proceeding under section 6A of the Act, should be initiated for confiscation of the goods in question and for that purpose he was directing the petitioner to file his show cause by the 28th November, 1974. In my view this will amount to the seized goods being produced before the respondent Deputy Commissioner. 15. This writ application, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Commissioner in deciding the appeal on merits, or of the Criminal Court coming to a finding on the merits of the case, because I have refrained from expressing any opinion on the alleged contravention of the provisions of the orders concerned. Sarwar Ali, J. I agree. Application dismissed.