JUDGMENT This revision is directed against order dated 24.12.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rat/am in Misc. Cri. Case No. 11 of 1992. The short facts are that police are said to have seized certain quantity of wheat for an offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') and gave the wheat in Supratnama of petitioner. Subsequently the police completed investigation and have filed the challan in the special Court (Sessions Court). Simultaneously it appears that the Collector has started proceedings regarding confiscation under section 6A of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the Special Court (Sessions Court) for permitting the petitioner to reulin his custody of the wheat which has already given on his Supratnama by 'the police during the course of investigation (This fact is stated by Shri S.L. Gwaliyari, learned counsel for the petitioner). The Sessions Court rejected the application stating that as the Collector was considering the action in relation to seized wheat, hence, the Special Court (Sessions Court) did not deem it fit to pass any order. Learned Panel Lawyer is unable to show any provision under the Act which empowers the Collector to pass order about custody of the property during the aforesaid proceedings. Consequently it is plain that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code about custody of property pending enquiry and trial must be brought into force. The Special Court could not have refused to exercise jurisdiction by dismissing the application as it has done. Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar (1991 Crimes Vol. 1 page 311) has taken a view that even during the pendency of proceedings of confiscation, the Sessions Court, as special Court can exercise powers regarding custody of the property. The order dated 24.12.1992 challenged in this revision, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand as the Sessions Court as special Court under the Act has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The order is set -aside and instead it is ordered that the special Court shall decide the question of custody of the property after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month during which time the custody of the wheat of the petitioner shall continue as given by the police on Supratnama, albiet it shall be subject to section 6-Aof the Act. Petition Allowed.