M. S. NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision petition, it is prayed that the entire proceedings in CC No. 12 of 1981 on the file of the Civil Judge and prl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Bagalkot, be quashed. ( 2 ) BAGALKOT police placed charge sheet against the petitioners alleging that they had committed the offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with R. 3 of Karnataka Pulses edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, (to be hereinafter referred to as tbe Order ). ( 3 ) THE necessary facts are that on 1-4-1981 the Tahsildar, Bagalkot, the Revenue Inspector as well as the Sub-Inspector of police (Crime) Bagalkot, inspected the business place of the petitioners and found grains and goods stored in contravention of the aforementioned Rule. They were seized. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, directed confiscation of the said goods under S. 6a of the Act. Crl. A. No. 70 of 1981 was preferred before the sessions Judge, Bijapur, under S. 6c of the act. The appeal was allowed and the order of confiscation passed by Deputy commissioner was set aside. ( 4 ) SRI K. M. Hadimani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that tbe Sessions Judge, has, in the course of his order, found that the seizure of the goods was itself illegal and that fact bas not been noticed by tbe learned magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence alleged against tbe petitioners in the charge sheet placed by the Bagalkot police and, therefore the entire proceedings ought to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE proceedings under Ss. 6a and 6c of the Act are quite separate from the proseration. One has no connection with the other. That is clear from the plain reading of the provisions of S. 6a of the Act. It is provided therein that the Deputy Commissioner has power to direct the essential commodities so seized to be produced for inspection before him if he thinks that it is expedient so to do and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such Order, he may order confiscation of the goods so seized on being satisfied that there has been a contravention of the Order concerned. The procedure that the Dy. The procedure that the Dy. Commissioner has to follow has been prescribed in S. 6b of the Act. No evidence as such is to be recorded by the deputy Commissioner. It is only his satisfaction on the material available that controls the action to be taken by him in respect of confiscation of the goods seized. The same principle applies to the proceedings before tbe Sessions Court i. e. , in an appeal under S. 6c of the Act. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the proceedings before the two authorities are quite different from a prosecution, wherein evidence will be led and the same will be assessed, analysed appreciated and weighed and then a finding is recorded whether it has been proved that there has been contravention of the concerned Order or Rule. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, tbe observations of the Sessions. Judge referred to by Sri Hadimani will have no bearing on the action of the magistrate in deciding whether cognizance of tbe offence or offences alleged is or is not to be taken. When the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences, this court, while exercising its revisional powers, ought not to lightly interfere witb such an order. That is the principle laid down by the Supreme-Court in the decisiom in Nagawwa v. Veeranna (I ). Moreover, despite the order of confiscation passed by the Dy. Commissioner being set aside by tbe Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers under S. 6c of the Act, the magistrate if he conciudes that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence or offences alleged has power to pass suitable orders in regard to the disposal of the property seized and confiscated or the consideration for the same if realised in case the property so seized has been sold. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss it. --- *** --- .