JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed Against the order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in which appeal preferred by Mukesh Gupta was accepted and the order of confiscation of the goods seized under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 was quashed. It was found that 17 pieces of Angle and 7 Pieces Iron Rod bundles were lying on road on 28.4.92. The goods was seized under section 203(5). 2. A notice was issued to the respondent as to why the goods seized should not be confiscated under section 203(2) of the Act. A reply was filed by the petitioner in which it was admitted that the business in the name of Nawal Iron Traders & Mukesh Steels in being carried on since last 15 to 20 years and Iron and Steel is received from re-rolling mills through bullock-cart and trucks in the night because the labour is not available at that time, therefore, the goods are being unloaded in the public way and in shifted about 8.00 A.M. in the morning to the shop. The District & Sessions Judge found that in accordance with the provisions of Section 203(1) and 203(2) if any encroachment is made, then the person concerned can be prosecuted in the Competent Court. He came to the conclusion that before exercising the power of confiscation under section 203(9) it has to be proved that there was obstruction/encroachment in terms of Section 203(1) or Section 203(2) of the Act. The power under section 203(5) was considered to be in addition to the power under section 203(1) and 203(2) and, therefore, unless a person is found to have been guilty of encroachment or obstruction under Sub-section 1 or Sub-Section 2 of Section 203 of the Act, the power of confiscation under section 203(9) can not be exercised. Since it was found that the respondents were not prosecuted for the offence under section 203(1) or 203(2), the action which has been taken of confiscation can not be said to have been proved by a Competent Court. On fact also it was observed that from the perusal of the file encroachment or deliberate obstruction is not proved. The facts which were stated in the application were found not to have been considered by the administration in his order dated 15.5.1992 and hence the appeal was accepted. 3. On fact also it was observed that from the perusal of the file encroachment or deliberate obstruction is not proved. The facts which were stated in the application were found not to have been considered by the administration in his order dated 15.5.1992 and hence the appeal was accepted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power under section 203(9) is an independent power of the right of the Municipal Corporation for prosecution and is not dependent upon a finding being recorded in the trial under section 203(1) or 203(2). It is also submitted that from the reply submitted by the respondent, he has admitted the fact of the goods being unloaded on the public-street and that complete procedure for seizure and confiscation and providing opportunity to the respondent was followed. 4. I have considered over the matter. The provisions of Section 203 (5) and 203(9) are as under:- Section 11(5) "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, the Board or the Officer authorised by it in this behalf shall, in addition to the action taken as provided in this section, also have power to seize or attach any property found on the land or space referred to in this section or as the case may be, attached to such land or space or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land or space." Sec. 203(9) "Where any property is seized or attached under sub-section (5), the Board may order confiscation of such property" 5. The opening word of Section 203(5) makes it clear that the provisions of Sub-section 203(5) are independent and are not dependent on any way of the provisions from 203(1) to 203(4). The words "in addition to the action taken " used in this sub-section does not make the exercise of power of seizure dependent on the exercise of power under section 203(1). Under section 203(1), the encroachment on a property which is not private property is punishable and under section 203(2) the obstruction is punishable. Section 203(5) confers the power for seizure of the goods which could be confiscated under section 203(9). It is no doubt true that in the proceedings for confiscation under section 203(9), the burden is on the Municipality to prove that the obstruction has been caused. Section 203(5) confers the power for seizure of the goods which could be confiscated under section 203(9). It is no doubt true that in the proceedings for confiscation under section 203(9), the burden is on the Municipality to prove that the obstruction has been caused. This burden could be exercised in the proceedings which are initiated under section 203(9) and it is not necessary that it must be proved in the proceedings under section 203(2). The ingredients for an offence under section 203(2) and for action under section 203(9) are different. The proceedings under section 203(2) are criminal while the proceedings under section 203(9) are quasi-criminal, having the penal consequences of confiscation of the goods. A situation may arise where the action is taken under both the sections, and in such a situation the finding which has been recorded by a Criminal court under section 203(2) may be relevant, but, not binding in the proceedings under section 203(9). There may be another situation where the person concerned is under trial under section 203(2) or the action is taken only under section 203(9). If the action is taken under section 203(9), it can not be considered that unless the action is taken under section 203 (2) and a finding is recorded by the Court, with regard" to the obstruction, there can not be any confiscation. The finding of obstruction has to be recorded in the proceedings under section 203(9) itself, which is independent and in addition to the criminal trial which may or may not have been lodged against the person. If the view expressed by the District and Sessions Judge is accepted, it would mean that, every person has to be prosecuted under section 203(2), which is not the proper interpretation. The decision of the Apex Court in A.C. Agarwal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Vs. Ram Kali, AIR 1968 SC 1 , has no application, because, under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act, 1956, a person is punishable when he keeps or manages or acts or assist in keeping or management of, a brothel and under section 18 the Magistrate on receipt of the information has the power for closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises. It was, in view of 'these provisions that the action under section 18 was held subject to the decision being taken under section 3. It was, in view of 'these provisions that the action under section 18 was held subject to the decision being taken under section 3. In the present case, section 203(9) is not dependent, on the finding being recorded under section 203(2) and on the contrary; if the provisions of section 203(5) are read alongwith section 203(9), then the only conclusion could be arrived is that, these are the independent power and are not subject to the decision by a Criminal Court in the proceedings under section 203(2). The words "in addition to" also make the exercise of power under section 203(5) read with section 203(9) independent of the other provisions. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur was not justified in taking the interpretation that the power for confiscation under section 203(9) can not be exercised, unless the offence is proved under section 203(1) or section 203(2) by a Competent Court with regard to encroachment or obstruction. The procedure for seizure and confiscation has been given from sub-clause, 5 to sub-clause 9. Sufficient safe-guard has been provided for making the order under Sub-section 10. A perusal of sub-section 11 makes it clear that the order of any confiscation under this section shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under this Act. This clause also makes it clear that the power of trial before a Criminal Court is separate and independent, and the power for seizure and confiscation of the goods is not dependent on such a power. The District Judge has been conferred with the power of appeal against the order of confiscation, and, therefore, there remains no possibility, of any conflict of Judgment as the trial under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is by a Judicial Magistrate, who is subordinate to the District Judge.The objects and reasons while proposing the bill in the assembly also makes it clear that the matter relating to confiscation of any property found on the land and encroached upon is an independent power conferred. Similarly, no reasons have been given nor any evidence has been discussed while recording the finding, that the encroachment or obstruction is (sic not) a deliberate one. Similarly, no reasons have been given nor any evidence has been discussed while recording the finding, that the encroachment or obstruction is (sic not) a deliberate one. As such, the order passed by the District Judge is set-aside and the matter is sent back to him for considering the matter on facts after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.Petition allowed. *******