KASAMKHAN RASULKHAN PATHAN v. STATE — 1978 DIGILAW 138 (GUJ)

B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector of Bulsar confiscating truck No. GTY-3865 belonging to the petitioner and he has also challenged the order of the Sessions Judge Bulsar at Navsari confirming the order of confiscation. He has further challenged the order of the Government of Gujarat in the Civil Supplies Department refusing to interfere with the order of confiscation. The order of the Collector of Bulsar is Annexure A to the petition. The order of the Sessions Judge is Annexure B to the petition and the order of the State Government is Annexure D to the petition. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of sec. 6a (1) (c) under which the Collector his got the power to confiscate the vehicle which is used for the purpose of contravening any of the provisions of an order issued under sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing No. GTY-3865. On February 14 1976 in the early hours of morning at about 3-30 AM this truck of the petitioner was intercepted by Police Sub Inspector Umbergaon on the national highway near village Atak-Pardi. This village is about forty kilometers inside the Gujarat State territory from the inter-State boundary between the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The case against the petitioner was that this truck was loaded with 79 bags of cabbage and below these bags of cabbage were 119 bags of 50 kilogram each packed with rice. These bags of rice goods according to the police authorities were being illegally transported to Maharashtra. The truck was being driven at the time by one Yasinkhan. The truck and the rice in 119 bags were both seized by the police under a Panchnama. On receiving report from the police the Collector of Bulsar initiated action under the provisions of sec. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner contended before the Collector when the appropriate notice under sec. 68 was issued to him that the rice which was found in the said truck was not meant for being carried outside the State of Gujarat. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner contended before the Collector when the appropriate notice under sec. 68 was issued to him that the rice which was found in the said truck was not meant for being carried outside the State of Gujarat. It was the case of the petitioner that the rice contained in the 119 bags was to be delivered at village Vankal in Bulsar Taluka of Bulsar District in the State of Gujarat It was the case of the petitioner that goods were consigned to one Jagubhai Khushalbhai of Vankal by Laxmanbhai Chhaganbhai of Bareja. The petitioner produced the bills in connection with this consignment and the petitioner contended that there was no intention to carry rice across the inter-State boundary and hence no question of the breach of the provisions of clause 3 of the relevant order issued under sec 3 would ever arise. It was the case of the petitioner that village Vankal was a few miles to the east of the point where the truck was intercepted. It was found that Vankal village was situated on Bulsar Dharampur Road and was about five to seven miles to the east of the national highway. It was the case of the petitioner before the Collector that driver Yasinkhan had been instructed to carry the rice to village Vankal and to hand over the same to Jagubhai Khushaldas of Vankal village. It was the case of the petitioner that he had undertaken this contract of transporting lice from Laxmanbhai Chhaganbhii of Bareja for the sum of Rs. 357. 00. Jagubhai and Laxmanbhai gave their statements supporting the petitioner and according to their statements the rice belonged to Laxmanbhai who bad sent the same to Jagubhai Khushaldas and the bill was already seat to Jagubhai Khushaldas. The Collector of Bulsar relied upon the statement given by driver Yasinkhan before the police under sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and issued an order of confiscation of the truck and the rice. This order of confiscation was made by the Collector on April 17 1976 Against the order of confiscation the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge Bulsar under sec. 6 of the Act. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and issued an order of confiscation of the truck and the rice. This order of confiscation was made by the Collector on April 17 1976 Against the order of confiscation the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge Bulsar under sec. 6 of the Act. On August 10 1976 the learned Judge by his judgment and order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Collector confiscating the truck herding to the petitioner. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner the driver of the truck and two others were prosecuted in connection with these 119 bags of rice before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Valsad and the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on April 16 1977 that is after the learned Sessions Judge Valsad had dismissed the appeal against the order of confiscation. Thereafter on December 23 1977 the present application under Article 2 6 of the Constitution was filed challenging the order of confiscation as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. After this Special Criminal Application was filed it was amended and by the amendment the petitioner has challenged the vires of the section. ( 3 ) MR. K. J. Sethna for the petitioner has urged the following four contentions before us: (1) his first contention is that since under sec. 6 of the Act once an accused is acquitted in connection with contravention of an order issued under sec. 3 of the Act the essential commodity or its equivalent is required to be returned to the accused. There is on reason why the truck which was seized because it was being used for the contravention of the order in connection with the essential commodity should not be returned or the value thereof should not b paid to the owner of the vehicle (2) His second submission was that there was in fact no contravention of the order issued under sec. 3 of the Act inasmuch as the truck was slopped at a point which was forty kilometers inside the Gujarat State and therefore there was locus poenitentiae for the driver of the truck. All that had happened in this case was that there was preparation to export rice out of the State of Gujarat but there was no attempt and since preparation to commit an offence of contravention of an order issued under sec. All that had happened in this case was that there was preparation to export rice out of the State of Gujarat but there was no attempt and since preparation to commit an offence of contravention of an order issued under sec. 3 of the Act is not made punishable there was no contravention whatsoever and hence the Collectors order was invalid. (3) The seizure of the truck and of the essential commodity namely the rice could only be done under clause 7 of the Gujarat and Dadra Nagar Haveli Rice (Export) and Paddy (Movement Control) Act 1975 hereinafter referred to as the order under sec. 3. His contention was that the seizure could only be for the purpose of scoring the production of the vehicle in a Court and therefore the Collector could not pass the order of confiscation in raspiest of the goods so seized for the purpose of being produced in a Court of law and therefore the order of confiscation was bad. (4) His fourth and the last submission was that the power of confiscation under sec. 6a (1) (c) is uncanalised and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and ultra vires. ( 4 ) WE will take up these submissions of Mr. Sethna seriatim in the order in which they have been set out hereinabove. In support of the first submission Mr. Sethna relied upon a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Ishwarbhai Rambhai Patel. Sayamlal Ghosh and Others 19 G. L R. 228. In Ishwarbhais case on Brother D. P. Desai J. sitting singly dealt with this very question as to what was the effect of an acquittal in a prosecution under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the order of confiscation passed under sec. 6a of the Act by the Collector in respect of a vehicle. It may be mentioned at this stage that sec. 7 of the Act provides for the trial of an offence of contravening an order issued under sec. 3 of the Act. The facts of the case in Ishwarbhai Rambhais case were more or less similar to the facts of the case before us with one marked distinction. A truck bearing No. GTD-4207 was loaded with 90 bags of rice in Ahmedabad and was found proceeding towards Broach and beyond Broach it had crossed the Narmada Bridge. 3 of the Act. The facts of the case in Ishwarbhai Rambhais case were more or less similar to the facts of the case before us with one marked distinction. A truck bearing No. GTD-4207 was loaded with 90 bags of rice in Ahmedabad and was found proceeding towards Broach and beyond Broach it had crossed the Narmada Bridge. Before that an information about it as well as some other truck in which rice was to be exported to Maharashtra had reached the Deputy Director Civil Supplies Gandhinagar. The Deputy Director and one Bachani left Ahmedabad in a car and at Narmada Bridge near-Broach they could find an entry about this truck loaded with food grains in the relevant records maintained at Broach. Having found that the truck had crossed the Narmada Bridge the Deputy Director and Bachani followed the truck which was ultimately found going towards south that is towards Maharashtra border but it was found near Ankleshwar a short distance beyond Broach. The Deputy Director and Bachani followed the truck which was ultimately found going from Bardoli towards Ukai. On the way near Bajipura the truck stopped. There the driver was questioned about its destination. It appears that after such questioning the truck started its reverse journey from Bajipura and came to Bardoli. The car in which the Deputy Director and Bachani were travelling had proceeded ahead in search of other trucks and on return they found that the truck was not parked at Bajipura. Therefore they returned to Bardoli and found the truck in a garage at Bardoli. Search of the truck took place at Bardoli and 90 bags of rice were found loaded in the truck. Thus the truck in question did not go beyond the limits of Gujarat. It was alleged against the persons concerned in that case that an attempt was made to contravene clause 3 and clause 4 of the Gujarat and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Rice (Export) and Paddy Movement (Control) Order which was issued under sec. 3 of the Act. The said contravention was also in law made punishable under sec. 7 of the Act and Ishwarbhai Rambhai who was one of the six persons concerned with the alleged contravention was prosecuted and the Collector of Surat in exercise of his powers under sec. 3 of the Act. The said contravention was also in law made punishable under sec. 7 of the Act and Ishwarbhai Rambhai who was one of the six persons concerned with the alleged contravention was prosecuted and the Collector of Surat in exercise of his powers under sec. 6a of the Act gave notice to the petitioner to show cause why the truck in question should not be confiscated as the same was found taking rice out of the limits of Gujarat State in a surreptitious manner and thereby it was allowed that contravention of the aforesaid order was made. Ishwarbhai Rambhai showed cause in reply and the Collector by his order dated September 10 1976 ordered confiscation of the truck in question. The Sessions Judge to whom an appeal was preferred under sec. 6c ofthe Act dismissed the appeal but in the meanwhile that is pending the appeal before the Sessions Judge Ishwarbhai Rambhai was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in respect of the contravention of the order issued under sec. 3. On these facts in the light of the provisions of sec. 6c (2) of the Act our learned Brother D. P. Desai J. held that though the vehicle used to carry the essential commodity is not an essential commodity if the essential commodity or its price becomes returnable on an acquittal there is no reason why the vehicle cannot be returned if the acquittal is on merits. Acquittal on merits means that in fact or in law no contravention of an order under see. 3 has taken place in repeat of the goods carried. In such a case the vehicle must be returned to its original owner and the law will readily imply this obligation of the Government arising out of no acquittal on merits. Our learned Brother also derived superheat for his conclusion from the decision of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Kishorilal v. Addl. Collector Kanpur A. I. R. 1963 All. 159. ( 5 ) IN order to understand this first submission of Mr. Sethna it is necessary to refer shortly to the history of the different amendments made to the Essential Commodities Act 1955 The Act as originally enacted had no provision for confiscation. It was only by the Amendment Act of 1965 (Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 1956 that secs. 159. ( 5 ) IN order to understand this first submission of Mr. Sethna it is necessary to refer shortly to the history of the different amendments made to the Essential Commodities Act 1955 The Act as originally enacted had no provision for confiscation. It was only by the Amendment Act of 1965 (Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 1956 that secs. 6a to 6d were inserted in the Act. Sec. 6a provides for confiscation and as originally enacted in 1966 provided for confiscation of an asocial commodity and was in was terms and by virtue of the Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Act 1967 read as follows:"where any essential community is seized is pursuance of an order made under sec. 3 in relation thereto 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 may if satisfied that there has been a contravention of therefore order of confiscation on the essential commodity so seized". Sec. 6c provided for an appeal against the order of confiscation and under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6c originally enacted in 1966 it was provided:"where an order under sec. 6a is modified or annulled by such judicial authority or where in a prosecution in for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under sec. 6-A 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 therefore as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential community". We are not concerned with the rest of the provisions of sec. 6c (2 ). It is to be noted at this stage that when sec. 6a and 6c were first inserted there has provision in sec. 6a only for seizure of the essential commodity in respect-of which contravention of the order issued under sec. 3 was alleged and under sec. 6c (2) it was only the essential commodity or its monetary equivalent which was to be returned to the person concerned if he was acquitted in a regular judicial trial. 6a only for seizure of the essential commodity in respect-of which contravention of the order issued under sec. 3 was alleged and under sec. 6c (2) it was only the essential commodity or its monetary equivalent which was to be returned to the person concerned if he was acquitted in a regular judicial trial. A our learned Brother has rightly pointed out in Ishwarbhai Rambhais case by virtue to these provisions the order passed by a quasi-judicial authority namely the Collector was made subject to the order of a judicial authority. ( 6 ) THE provisions of sec. 6a were amended with effect from August 29 1974 by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 1974 being Act 30 of 1974. By sec. 4 of this Amendment Act in sec. 6a of the Act provision was made to empower the Collector to order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized or any package covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity was found and any animal vehicle or other conveyance used for carrying such essential commodity. Though sec. 6 was thus amended enlarging the powers of the Collector to order confiscation namely by empowering him to order confiscation not only of the essential commodity but also of the package covering or receptacle in which the essential commodity was found and confiscation of even the vehicle used in carrying such essential commodity and making it obligatory on not amend sec. 6c (2) of the Act directing and making it obligatory on the authorities concerned to return the vehicle or its monetary equivalent to the owner of the vehicle in case he was acquitted in a trial under sec. 7 of the Act. It may be noted that under sec. 6b of the Act an opportunity was to be given to the owner of the vehicle to prove to the satisfaction of the Collector that the vehicle was used in; carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself his agent if any and the person in charge of the animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. But the Legislatures as vie have pointed out did not amend sec. But the Legislatures as vie have pointed out did not amend sec. 6c (2) to provide for the return of the vehicle or its monetary equivalent in the case of and acquittal by the Magistrate trying the case under sec. 7 of the Act. It seems that so far as the owners of receptacles etc. and owners of vehicles etc. were concerned they were left only with the remedy of an appeal to the. Court or the judicial authority referred to in sec. 6c (1 ). Baring; the relief which could be given to them under sec 6c (1) by the judicial authority to whom an appeal against the order of confiscation was provided in sec. 6c (1) no other relief was contemplated by the Legislature. It me be pointed out that with effect from 2nd September 1976 the Essential Commodities Act 1976 was amended by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 1976 being Act 92 of 1976 Even by this Act though some provision by way of relief in the case of an order of confiscation of animal vehicle vessel ar other conveyance is made there is no provision. in the amended sec. 6c (2) of the Act regarding return of the vehicle or monetary equivalent thereof to the owner of the vehicle vessel etc. As proviso is added to sec. 6a (1) to the following effect:"provided further that in the case of any animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire the owner of such animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay in lieu of its confiscations a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance". It may be noted tnat though sec. 9 or the Amendment Act of 1076 provided for certain retrospective effect it did not provide for retrospective effect to the second proviso which it inserted in sec. 6a (1) of the principal Act. ( 7 ) IN our opinion the historical development of the different amendtenants that we have traced so far clearly goes to show that the Legislature has deliberately omitted to make any provision for the return of the vehicle or vessel ar receptacle if the person concerned is acquitted in a Court of law. 6a (1) of the principal Act. ( 7 ) IN our opinion the historical development of the different amendtenants that we have traced so far clearly goes to show that the Legislature has deliberately omitted to make any provision for the return of the vehicle or vessel ar receptacle if the person concerned is acquitted in a Court of law. The only requirement regarding confiscation of such goods is that now after the amendment of 1976 an opinion has to be given at the time of passing the order of confiscation to the owner of the vehicle vessel etc. to pay a file equivalent to the value of the essential commodity in respect of which the vehicle or vessel was used for the purpose of carriage and the fine shall not exceed the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity that is to be carried in the vehicle vessel etc. But that further proviso to sec. 6c (1) of the Act was not on the statute book when the truck in the instant case was seized by the police authorities on February 14 1976 and when the confiscation order wa passed by the Collector on April 17 1976 and when the criminal appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Valsad on August 10 1976 Therefore we have to proceed with this case on the situation as it prevailed between 1974 and 1976. Our learned Brother D. P. Desai J. interpreting this provision in Ishwarbhai Rambhais case has proceeded on the tooting of implication and he has held that the law will readily imply the obligation of the Government to return the truck or its monetary equivalent in the case of an acquittal by a Judicial Magistrate of the owner on merits. With respect to our learned Brother we are unable to agree with this conclusion of his. In our opinion the intontion of the Legislature at the time when it amended sec. 6a (1) in 1974 enlarging the powers of the Collector of confiscation namely enlarging the powers from confiscation of the essential commodity to confiscation also of the receptacle etc. in which the essential commodity was found at the time of seizure and also of the vehicle vessel etc. in which the essential commodity was being carried at the time of seizure by not amending sec. in which the essential commodity was found at the time of seizure and also of the vehicle vessel etc. in which the essential commodity was being carried at the time of seizure by not amending sec. 6c (2) of the Act when it amended it in 1974 though it amended sec. 6a (1) seems to be to see that those who were facilitating the contravention of the orders issued under sec. 3 of the Act should not be in a position to repeat their actions over and over again though it was found there was no actual export of the essential commodity outside the particular restricted zone. By virtue of clause 3 of the Gujarat and Dadra Nagar Haveli Rice (Export) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1975 no person could export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice except under and in accordance which a permit issued by the authorities stated in that clause and export means to take or cause to be taken by any means whatsoever from any place within the zone to a place outside it and zone has been defined to mean the area compressing the State of Gujarat and the Union territory of Dadra and Hagar Haveli to which this order of 1973 was extended. It is therefore clear that when the Legislature provided that in the case of an acquittal of an accused of the offence of exporting or attempting to export or abetting the export of rice without the necessary permit outside Gujarat in contravention of this order issued under sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act the essential commodity namely rice was to be returned to the person acquitted yet the receptacle in which the rice was found or the vehicle which was being used for the purpose of attempting expert was not directed to be returned. It was by a special provision of sec. 6c (2) that in the case of an acquittal by the Court of a Judicial Magistrate First Class trying the case under sec. 7 of the Act the essential commodity which was ordered to be confiscated by the Collector had to be returned or its money equivalent had to be returned to the owner of the essential commodity. It may be pointed out in this connection that under sec. 7 of the Act the essential commodity which was ordered to be confiscated by the Collector had to be returned or its money equivalent had to be returned to the owner of the essential commodity. It may be pointed out in this connection that under sec. 7 (1) (b) the Court trying a criminal case for contravention or violation of an order issued under sec. 3 can pass orders of forfeiture regarding the property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part thereof as to the Court may seem fit including any packages coverings or receptacles in which the property is found and any animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the property. But this is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court. It seems that when the Legislature amended sec. 6a by giving powers of confiscation to the Collector in respect of receptacles etc. and vehicles etc. it brought powers of confiscation under sec. 6a on par with the powers of forfeiture of the Court under sec. 7. But at the same time the provisions of sec. 6c (2) were not disturbed qua the return of essential commodity or its equivalent on an acquittal by a competent Court so far as confiscation orders were concerned. In view of this historical background and historical perspective we are unable to agree with our learned Brother D. P. Desai J. when he held in Ishwarbhai Rambhais case that under the implied powers under sec. 6c (2) in case of an acquittal even the vehicle or the value thereof must be returned to the person acquitted in connection with the offence regarding that vehicle. ( 8 ) MR. Sethnas next contention was that in fact no contravention of the order under sec. 3 of the Act has taken place in this case inasmuch as the truck was stopped at a point which was 40 kilometers inside the Gujarat State. In this connection he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. The State of Punjab A. I. R. 1970 S C 713 In that case the facts were that a Sub Inspector of Food and Supplies Department stopped a truck at Samolkha Birrier. The truck at that time was driven by Malkiat Singh and Babu Singh was the cleaner of that truck. The truck at that time was driven by Malkiat Singh and Babu Singh was the cleaner of that truck. The truck carried 75 bags of paddy weighing about 140 maunds. Export of paddy from Punjab to Delhi was contrary to law at that time. The Sub Inspector took into possession the truck as also the bags of paddy. The consignment of paddy was booked from Malerkotla on October 18 1961 by Qimat Rai on behalf of Messrs Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal. The consignee of the paddy were Messrs Devi Dayal Brij Lal of Delhi. According to driver Malkiat Singh he was given the paddy by the transport company at Malerkotla for being transported to Delhi. The transport company also gave him a letter assuring him that it was an authority for transporting the paddy. But it later transpired that it was a personal letter from Qimat Rai to the commission agents at Delhi and that it was not a letter of authority. Babu Singh the cleaner admitted that he was sitting in the truck as a cleaner. The trial Court convicted all the accused persons. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal i. e. person on whose behalf Qimat Rai was acting and affirmed the conviction of Qimat Rai and of the driver and the cleaner. Thereafter the driver and cleaner took the matter in revision to the High Court. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court and thereafter the driver and the cleaner approached the Supreme Court on appeal. Qimat Rai the man who had entrusted the consignment of paddy to the driver of the truck had not gone in revision to the High Court nor had he appealed to the Supreme Court. It was on these facts that the Supreme Court held that there was locus poenitentiae for the driver because all that the driver has done was to prepare to take the paddy to Delhi in violation of law and it was possible that before crossing the border into Delhi which border was 18 miles from the place where the truck was stopped the driver could have stopped and it was open to the driver not to cross the border and to take the paddy back or to take it elsewhere. Therefore the Supreme Court pointed out that the stage of preparation was not over and the stage of attempt as known to criminal law had not yet begin so far as the driver and the cleaner were concerned. In the instant case we are not dealing with the driver or the cleaner but the owner of the truck who had given instructions to his driver to take the rice in question to Bombay. That is the material available on the record before us and that is pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in his appellate order. Hence it is obvious that so far as the petitioner before us is concerned he had done everything in his power to see that the offence of exporting rice from Gujarat to Maharashtra should be committed but it was by reason of circumstances beyond his control that the actual offence was not committed. So far as the driver of the truck was concerned it was at the stage of preparation undoubtedly but so far as the petitioner was concerned the stage of attempt must certainly be held to have commenced. The petitioner before us is more or less in the same position as Qimat Rai of the case before the Supreme Court. In Malkiat Singhs case Qimat Rais conviction was not disturbed by the Supreme Court in any manner even in suo motu revisional jurisdiction when the conviction of the driver and the cleaner were set aside. Under these circumstances this contention based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singhs case cannot help the petitioner in the instant case and therefore the second contention must be rejected. ( 9 ) THE third contention of Mr. Under these circumstances this contention based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singhs case cannot help the petitioner in the instant case and therefore the second contention must be rejected. ( 9 ) THE third contention of Mr. Sethna was based in clause 7 of the Gujarat and Dadra Nagar Hiveli Rice (Export) and Paddy Movement Control Order 1975 Under clause 7 any police officer not below the rank of Head Constable or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of Supply Inspector or any Revenue Officer not below the rank of Aval Karkun and any other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may with a view to securing compliance with the order or to satisfying that this order has been complied with seize or authorise seizure of any rice in respect of which he has reason to believe that any provision of this order has been is being or is about to be contravened. along with the packages covariance or receptacles in which such rice is found or the animals vehicles vessels boats or conveyances used in carrying rice for severing the production of the packages coverings receptacles animals vehicles vessels boats or conveyances so seized in Court. It is contended that since the seizure was for producing the vehicle in Court it was not open to the Collector acting under sec. 6a of the Act to confiscate the vehicle. Under sec. 6a of the Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1974 after an essential commodity is seized in pursuance of the order made under sec. 3 in relation thereto it would be produced without any unreasonable delay before the Collector of the District and the Collector if satisfied that there has been contravention of the order may order confiscation of the commodity so seized. The same power of confiscation was extended by the Amendment Act of 1974 to any vehicle or vessel etc. used for carrying such essential commodity. Therefore even though the seizure was for the purpose of inducing the essential commodity; 59 seized or the receptacle etc. or the vehicle etc. before the Court by virtue of the provisions of sec. The same power of confiscation was extended by the Amendment Act of 1974 to any vehicle or vessel etc. used for carrying such essential commodity. Therefore even though the seizure was for the purpose of inducing the essential commodity; 59 seized or the receptacle etc. or the vehicle etc. before the Court by virtue of the provisions of sec. 61 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1974 it is open to the Collector to pass an order of confiscation in respect of the vehicle because the power of seizure and the power of confiscation operate in two separate areas altogether and under tow different provisions of the law altogether. Hence this contention of Mr. Sathna is also rejected. ( 10 ) IT was lastly contended that the powers of seizure under sec. 6a was an uncanalised power and therefore it was ultra vires. Now when we turn to the language of sec. 6a it speaks of satisfaction of the Collector that there has been a contravention of the order passed under sec. 3 and then only his power of confiscation can be exercised not only as regards the essential commodity but also as regards the receptacle etc. or the vehicle etc. Further there is an appeal provided for by sec. 6c of the Act and looking to the fact that there must be a contravention of the order it cannot be said that the power of confiscation under sec. 6a is uncanalised. The Collectors attention has directly to be focused on the question whether there has been contravention of the order or not and hence it cannot be said that there is uncanalised power. Under these circumstances the fourth contention of Mr. Sethna also fails and is rejected. Under these circumstances all the points urged by Mr. Sethna fail. This Special Criminal Application therefore also fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( 11 ) MR. Sethna has applied orally for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution. In our opinion there is no substantial question of law in this case in view of the clear provisions of law and therefore we are unable to capacity that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. The oral application is therefore rejected. Petition dismissed; .