JUDGMENT Borooah, J. – The petitioners in these two Rules, namely, Udham Singh and Joginder Singh are registered owners of two Tanker lorries namely, WMK 4499 and TRL 1901 respectively. These two lorries together with their contents namely. Jute Batching Oil, where seized from a godown at Alampur within Sankrail Police Station on the night of 15.3.78 and in connection with these seizures Sankrail P.S. Case No. 15 dated 16.3.78 under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 read with Ss. 407/120/411 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 830 of 1978, was started against the two petitioners in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Howrah. 2. On the 10.5.78 the two petitioners in these Rules appeared before the learned Magistrate and prayed for return of the seized oil tanker to them. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned Advocates, passed on order for return of the two tankers to their respective registered owners upon their producing valid and legal documents of title and after executing a bonds of Rs. 1,50,000/- each with an undertaking that they would not dispose of the tankers without the permission of the court or change the nature and character thereof and produce them on call. 3. On 26.5.78 both the petitioners furnished the bond as directed by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10.5.78 and after the bonds were accepted, the petitioners took back the seized tanker lorries. 4. Thereafter the investigating officer filed an application under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 thereinafter ‘the Act’) before the District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah for confiscation of the goods including the two lorries seized in connection with the aforesaid Sankrail Police Station case. Both the petitioners received notice under S. 6A of the Act for showing cause by 31.5.78 as to why the seized article should not be confiscated under the provisions of the S. 6A(2) of the Act. In spite of time being taken by both the petitioners, no cause was shown and the learned District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah by an order dated 24.8.78 passed an order directing confiscation of the seized article including the two tanker lorries. The investigating officer was also directed to take necessary steps for sale of the lorries and other articles after keeping samples of the seized oil. 5. The investigating officer was also directed to take necessary steps for sale of the lorries and other articles after keeping samples of the seized oil. 5. Against the order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals being Appeal Nos. 72 and 73 of 1978 before the learned Sessions Judge. Howrah and by an order dated 27.11.78 Shri P. Dutta, Sessions Judge, Howrah dismissed both the appeals. Against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge those petitioners have come up before this Court in revision and have obtained the present Rules. 6. Mr. Pramodranjan Roy learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these two Rules, has submitted that in view of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.5.78 directing the tanker lorries to be returned to the petitioners on their executing bonds of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and the subsequent order dated 26.5.78 accepting the bounds, the order dated 24.8.78 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah directing confiscation of the seized goods including the tanker lorries, is without jurisdiction and should accordingly be set aside. 7. Mr. Mitra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf on the State, argued with reference to S. 6A of the Act that irrespective of the fact whether or not any prosecution has been launched in respect of the violation of any provision of the Act, the Collector of the District or the presidency town in which the essential commodity including any container or receptacle including a vehicle in which such essential commodity had been conveyed. Mr. Mitra further argued that session 6E of the Act bars the jurisdiction of an ordinary criminal court to pass any order in respect of any essential commodity or any vehicle found with such commodity, seized pursuant to an order under S. 3 of the Act. 8. Under S. 6E of the Act the Collector or a Judicial authority appointed under S. 6C will be the only authority to pass any order in respect of any essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under S. 3 of the Act; such authority will prevail notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is clear from S. 6A that only essential commodity is mentioned and not any container or any vehicle which is used for carrying the essential commodity. It is clear from S. 6A that only essential commodity is mentioned and not any container or any vehicle which is used for carrying the essential commodity. Therefore in respect of any vehicle which is used for carrying any essential commodity and which has been seized in connection with any case started under the Act, the jurisdiction of a criminal court has not been ousted. 9. Section 6A of the Act empowers a Collector to order confiscation of any essential commodity including any vehicle seized in connection with any proceeding under the Act. This section does not take away the jurisdiction of any ordinary criminal court to pass any order regarding disposal of any article including any vehicle, apart from the essential commodity, which has been seized in connection with a proceeding under the Act till the proceeding pending before the Criminal Court is finally disposed of. As such the Chief Judicial Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in passing the two orders dated 10.5.78 and 26.5.78 and as such, the order of the District Magistrate and Collector dated 24.8.78 if allowed to stand, will tantamount to nullifying the effect of the two orders passed by a judicial authority strictly in accordance with law. Therefore the learned Session Judge, Howrah erred in dismissing the two appeals filed by the petitioners and upholding the order of the District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah dated 24.8.78. 10. We, therefore, allow these two applications, make the Rules absolute and set aside the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Howrah in Criminal Appeal Nos. 72 and 73 of 1978 and affirm the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah dated 10.5.78 and 26.5.78. Maitra J : I agree. Rule made absolute.