JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Mr. G. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. P. K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing as the Public Prosecutor in this case. 2. Cognizance has been taken against Petitioner No. 1 for an offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated the control orders made under it on the allegation of possession and transport of articles beyond the limits fixed in the control orders. 3. The officer-in-charge who seized twenty-nine bags of husk, fifty-two bags of rice and twenty bags of wheat with the truck carrying the articles on 10-10-1986 described the articles to be controlled commodities and moved the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate for sale of the same at control rate, since the articles are likely to be damaged in the Malkhana of the Police-Station by rats and nature and there being no sufficient place to keep the articles carefully and properly they were lying outside on the verandah. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate having refused to entertain the petition, a petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge on 25-11-1986 and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 4-12-1986 permitted sale of the seized articles at rates fixed by State Government preferably to storage agents. 4. On 5-12-1986, the Petitioners filed an application offering to purchase the articles at control rate on the assertion that the articles were purchased from Kuakhia in Cuttack district for their own consumption. The said application has been refused in the impugned order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below. Heard. I do not find how the Petitioners would sustain loss. If they can now purchase at the rate fixed by the Government they can with the same money make purchases from the Government depots or stockists. The case is not yet tried, passing an order for selling the seized property to them would not be proper.... 5. There is no dispute that the articles are to be disposed of. The short question is regarding the disposal by sale at Government rate preferably to storage agents are directed in order dated 4-12-1986 or to the Petitioners. 6. No doubt the investigating officer described the articles as controlled commodities. This would be a matter of proof and at this stage no view should be expressed either way. The short question is regarding the disposal by sale at Government rate preferably to storage agents are directed in order dated 4-12-1986 or to the Petitioners. 6. No doubt the investigating officer described the articles as controlled commodities. This would be a matter of proof and at this stage no view should be expressed either way. However, in case the price paid for the commodities would be more than the control price, there can be no doubt that the Petitioners would sustain loss since on acquittal of Petitioner No. 1 and proof of the fact that the Petitioners purchased the same, they would be entitled only to the value of the commodities to be kept in deposit. The learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, not correct that the Petitioners would not sustain any loss. 7. Mr. G. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted putting strong reliance on the copies of challans filed in this Court which are attested by the Advocate to be true copies that on 9-10-1986 the Petitioners purchased the articles seized from M/s. Nabaghan Sahu of Kuakhia at a price which is much higher to the control rate for their own consumption. It is not desirable to express any view on those challans at this stage since these challans may have to be considered at the trial in case charge-sheet is filed on the basis of investigation. 8. No provision has been shown to me where the articles seized if ordered to be said, cannot be sold to the person accused. In any case, the Petitioners other than Petitioner No. 1 are not accused. Even, Petitioner No. 1 cannot be penalised until proved to be guilty. Accordingly, I find no valid objection for sale of the seized articles to the Petitioners. 9. Mr. P. K. Mohanty, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the bags which have marks can go a long way to prove the crime. I also feel that the quality of the articles if proved may lead to the conclusion that such articles are controlled commodities and are not available in open market at Kuakhia where from the Petitioners claim to have purchased them. I also feel that the quality of the articles if proved may lead to the conclusion that such articles are controlled commodities and are not available in open market at Kuakhia where from the Petitioners claim to have purchased them. Interest of justice in the circumstances would be best served in case the articles are sold to the Petitioners after retaining the bags in which the articles are seized in custody of the investigating officer with one kilogram of the articles from each bag properly preserved. The bags and the articles to be retained by the investigating officer shall be kept separately on fresh list being prepared giving details to supplement the original seizure list. The Petitioners shall furnish National Savings Certificates pledged to the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, equal to the price indicated in the challans in their respective names towards the sale price. After the allegation against Petitioner No. 1 is finalised, the trial Court shall direct the manner in which the National Savings Certificates shall be disposed of. On production of the pledged National Savings Certificates by each Petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge shall examine the same with reference to the challans and direct the officer-in-charge, Thakurmunda Police-station to deliver the articles as per the direction in this order. In case the National Savings Certificates are not produced within one month from today, the order dated 4-12-1986 of the learned Sessions Judge shall be operative. 10. In the result, the application is allowed, subject to the conditions laid down in the order. Final Result : Allowed