Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1180 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ramniwas

2000-10-31

N.K.JAIN

body2000
Short Note Heard. The order impugned is passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, in appeal u/s. 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, whereby the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, Rajgarh u/s. 6A has been set aside and the case has been remanded back to the Collector far decision afresh. The learned S.J., in his order has referred to provisions of section 12AC of the Act of 1955 and held that the Collector while holding enquiry u/s. 6A aught to have followed the procedure prescribed under the CrPC and should have examined the respondent u/s.313, CrPC. I am afraid, approach of the learned SJ. was not in accordance with law and he seems to. have misconstrued the provisions of section 12AC of the Act. section 12AC reads as follows : "12AC. Application of Code to proceedings before a special Court -save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code (including the provisions as to bail and bands) shall apply to the proceedings before a special Court and far the purpose of the said provisions, the special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor." Obviously, the aforesaid provision applies to the proceedings before a Special Court. The proceedings of confiscation u/s. 6A were not proceedings before Special Court and the respondent was not an accused facing any trial for any offence under the Act. Reference to section 313 of the CrPC was wholly irrelevant. The proceedings u/s 6A were quasi-judicial in nature and the Collector was required to see whether there has been violation of any order made u/s 3 of the Act. The power of the Collector was limited only for the purpose of confiscating the seized commodity and he could not and did not adjudge the respondent guilty far any offence either under the Act of 1955 or any other law far the time being in farce. The learned Sessions Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the provisions of the CrPC would apply to the said proceedings of confiscation and the respondent was required to be examined by the Collector u/s 313 of the Code. The impugned order thus deserves to be quashed and the appeal should be back to the Sessions Court below far decision afresh in accordance with law. The impugned order thus deserves to be quashed and the appeal should be back to the Sessions Court below far decision afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, I allow this revision, set aside the order dated 26.4.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21/99 and directed that the appeal shall go back to the Sessions Court below far decision afresh in accordance with law. Before parting, it may be observed that the learned Dy. AG has also raised question of jurisdiction as to whether the appeal would lie to the Sessions Court or to the State Government. This paint was not, however, raised before the Sessions Court below nor in the memo of revision before this Court. I, therefore, leave this question to be raised by the petitioner-State before the Court below itself, which shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the observations as aforesaid. this petition stands disposed of. A copy each of this order be remitted immediately to the Sessions Judge. Rajgarh and the Collector. Rajgarh. for needful. C.C. to both the parties in 3 days.