Order. The question for my consideration in this petition is whether a person could not be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, when proceedings against him were dropped under section 6-A of the Act? 2. The petitioner is doing business, in Iron and Cement under the name and style of ‘Akarapu Sivaprasad’ at Nagarkurnool and Palem.in Mahabubnagar district. He was granted a licence under the Cement Control Order. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Mahabubnagar, inspected his shop at Palem on 12th March, 1980 and found some irregularities in the sale of cement. He submitted a report to the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar to initiate action against the petitioner under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He seized the cement stock. He also filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nagarkurnool for prosecution of the petitioner under section 7 of the Act. 3. The Joint Collector, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause against five charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation. After enquiry, the Joint Collector, by his order dated 23rd January, 1981, held that the five charges were not proved and, therefore, dropped the proceedings and directed the release of the seized stock or its value to the petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, did not file any appeal against that order and, it has become final. 4. The charge-sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell before the Magistrate is still pending. 5. In this petition it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when once the proceedings under section 6-A of the Act were dropped by the Joint Collector, after holding a regular enquiry, it means, there is no violation of the provisions of the Cement Control Order; if so, the petitioner could not be prosecuted once again under section 7 of the Act. To drive home his point he relied upon the change in the wording of section 6-A of the Act, after its amendment in 1974 and other provisions. 6. To drive home his point he relied upon the change in the wording of section 6-A of the Act, after its amendment in 1974 and other provisions. 6. section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as it stood before the amendment in 1974 reads as follows: “Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, 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 the essential commodity so seized”.(Italics supplied.) By Act XXX of 1974, clauses (a) (b) and (c) in sub- section (1) of section 6-A were substituted with effect from 22nd June, 1974. The second proviso to sub- section (1) and sub- sections (2) and (3) were added by Act XCII of 1976, dated 2nd September, 1976. To the extent the amended section is relevant it reads as follows: “6-A (1). Where essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the. Collector of the district of 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 he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is 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…………… (2) (2) ……………………………. (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto shall — (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector. (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto shall — (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector. (b) Where an order passed on appeal under sub- section (1) of section 6-A so requires, or (c) Where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the concerned person is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized”. (Italics supplied.) 7. I will refer to the other provisions also section 6-D provides, that the award of any confiscation under the Act by the Collector, shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under the Act. 8. Section 6-E says that, wherever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, the Collector or, as the case may be, the judicial authority appointed under section 6-C shall, have and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other Court, tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property. 9. Section 7 refers to penalties. It provides that, if a person contravenes any order made under section 3, he shall be punishable with the different terms of imprisonment mentioned therein. The Court can also forfeit to the Government any property in respect of which the order has been contravened. 10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under section 6-A of the Act, before amendment, the commodity seized may be produced, while under the amended section it has to be produced, and if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order under section 3, he may order confiscation. Thus, it is mandatory to produce the seized commodity before the Collector, and he can order its confiscation, if there is contravention of the order made under section 3. Thus, it is mandatory to produce the seized commodity before the Collector, and he can order its confiscation, if there is contravention of the order made under section 3. Emphasis was also placed on the wording is clause (c) of sub section (3) of section 6-A, which says that, where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under that section, the concerned person is acquitted, the sale proceeds shall be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom the essential commodity was seized. It was also contended that section 6-A bars the jurisdiction of Courts to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property, except the Collector or the judicial authority appointed under section 6-C. It was argued that the condition precedent for taking action under section 6-A or 7 is violation of the control order and the jurisdiction, is vested with the Collector to decide whether the order is violated and when once the Collector holds that there is no violation of the order, it means, that the person concerned had not contravened any order made under section 3 and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted under section 7 of the Act. 11. I find it difficult to accept this contention. A reading of section 6-A, after amendment itself shows, that the prosecution is not barred. It specifically provided that when an essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 and whether or not the prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector can direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced before him. Similarly, clause (c) of sub- section (3) of section 6-A provides that, wherein a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under that section, if the concerned person is acquitted, he shall be paid the sale proceeds. It does not mean that the prosecution can be instituted only when an order of confiscation has been made under that section. It only means that the sale proceeds should be paid even when that person is prosecuted for contravention of the order and when he is acquitted, even though there was an order of confiscation by the Collector. It does not mean that the prosecution can be instituted only when an order of confiscation has been made under that section. It only means that the sale proceeds should be paid even when that person is prosecuted for contravention of the order and when he is acquitted, even though there was an order of confiscation by the Collector. The power to confiscate is now entrusted to the Collector. That becomes evident from a perusal of sections 6-A, 6-B and 6-E of the Act. Section 6-E emphasizes the fact that it is only the Collector and the judicial authority appointed under section 6-C that can make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property seized, in pursuance of an order made under section 3. A reading of section 6-D makes it plain that the award of any confiscation by the Collector shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under the Act. Under section 7, if a person contravenes an order made under section 3, he can be punished with imprisonment. Therefore, in view of section 6-D, the award of confiscation under the Act by the Collector does not prevent the infliction of punishment under section 7. The criminal Court can forfeit to the Government any property in respect of which the order under section 3 has been contravened; similarly, any packing, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the property can be forfeited to the Government. While section 6-A provides for confiscation, section 7 provides for forfeiture. A reference to section 6-C (2) also makes it clear that wherein a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, if it is not possible, for any reason, to return the essential commodity to him, he shall be paid the price thereof. 12. Under section 6-A power is given to the Collector for confiscation of the essential commodity for contravention of the order made under section 3. Under section 7 power is given to the criminal Court to punish a person who contravenes the order made under section 3. Thus, the two jurisdictions are different. Under section 6-A the Collector can only confiscate the commodity. Under section 7 power is given to the criminal Court to punish a person who contravenes the order made under section 3. Thus, the two jurisdictions are different. Under section 6-A the Collector can only confiscate the commodity. He cannot convict a person for contravention of the order and sentence him to imprisonment. Under section 7, a Magistrate can convict a person and sentence him to imprisonment. He cannot confiscate the essential commodity. He can only forfeit it. Merely because the Collector has not chosen to confiscate the essential commodity under section 6-A, it does not mean that the Magistrate cannot convict a person under section 7 for contravention of the order made under section 3. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Somisettl Rcmumcdah v. District Supply Officer1 where Alladi Kuppuswamy, J. (as he then was), held that under section 6-C (2), even if the order of confiscation was affirmed in appeal if still the prosecution for contravention ended in an acquittal the person concerned should be given the benefit of such acquittal and paid the price of the goods. This decision itself shows that the prosecution can be launched under section 7, notwithstanding the fact that the confiscation proceedings had been taken under section 6-A of the Act. 14. Consequently, I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that merely because the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, had dropped the proceedings against the petitioner under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the petitioner could not be prosecuted under section 7 of the Act in a criminal Court for contravention of the order made under section 3 of the Act. Hence, I dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.