S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a part of the judgment dated 21. 4. 99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 13948 (W) of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge refused to direct return of the sale price of the essential commodities seized from the appellant and sold in a proceeding initiated under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act for short ). ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. ( 3 ) THE appellant herein is proprietor of Siliguri Cereals Company which used to deal with rice and wheat. On or about 2. 8. 94, the competent authority inspected the flour mills belonging to the appellant and seized certain quantities of rice and wheat kept therein as according to the said authority such storage was contrary to the provisions of the orders made under the Essential Commodities Act. A criminal case as also a confiscation proceeding, being E. C. Case No. 8/2 of 1994/1995 was initiated. In the criminal case, the appellant was discharged in terms of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4 ) THE appellant, in that situation, filed the aforementioned writ application praying, inter alia, for return of the sale proceeds together with interest. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge, by reason of the impugned order, inter alia, held that the entire confiscation proceedings was bad in law. However, the learned trial Judge without assigning any reason refused to direct refund of the sale proceeds together with interest. ( 6 ) AS against the said order, State as also the appellant herein preferred appeals. The appeal preferred by the State was marked as M. A. T. 2858 of 1999. By a judgment and order dated 8. 10. 99, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal, inter alia, holding that an order of discharge would amount to an order of acquittal as if the petitioner had stood a full fledged trial by a criminal Court. The learned trial Judge, keeping in view the pending appeal filed by the appellant, did not pass any consequential order. ( 7 ) MR. The learned trial Judge, keeping in view the pending appeal filed by the appellant, did not pass any consequential order. ( 7 ) MR. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant brings to our notice the provision of section 6c (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, and submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the State and on a plain reading of section 6c (2) of the Act, it will be evident that the State is bound to refund the entire amount of sale proceeds together with reasonable interest to the appellant. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that after the judgment of the Divsion Bench, sale proceeds have been returned to the appellant. The only question which, therefore, survives for consideration of this Bench is as to whether the appellant is entitled to reasonable interest on the aforementioned sale proceeds from the date of seizure till the amount was handed over to the appellant. Section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, reads thus :" (2) Where an order under section 6-A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6-A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such persons shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6-A, be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential commodity, and such price shall be determined- (i)in the case of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of section 3; (ii)in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-C) of section 3 ; and (iii)in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3. " ( 9 ) A bare perusal of the aforemantioned provision would clearly go to show that the same is attracted in two circumstances, namely, (i) when an order of confiscation is set aside by a Court of appeal or other higher Courts, and (ii) when the proceeds is acquitted by the Criminal Court in the connected criminal case. There cannot be any doubt whatsover that in either of the two events section 6c (2) would be attracted. The only consideration for return of the sale proceeds and or proceeds on the basis of a deemed sale to the State would, inter alia, arise when the accused stands acquitted by the Criminal Court. As the Division Bench of this Court relying on several decisions of different High Courts, inter alia, held that the order of discharge passed in favour of the appellant amounts to acquittal, in our considered opinion, necessary consequence shall ensue, in as much as, squarely in that event, the provisions of section 6c (2) of the Act shall be attracted. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant would be entitled to return of the value of the goods together with interest from the date of seizure till the sale proceeds is handed over to him. As the sale proceeds have already been handed over to the appellant, we direct the State to pay interest unto the appellant on such sale proceed at the rate of 9 (nine) per cent per annum from the date of seizure till actual payment. Such payment should be made at an early dated and not later than 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. Urgent xerox certified be supplied on priority basis. Appeal allowed