Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONERS are three in number, all Co-operative Societies. They were allotted fair price shops for distribution of Sugar, Wheat etc. Material for such distribution used to be supplied to them by the Collector, Dindori (Food and Civil Supply Officer, Dindori ). Appellant No. 1 deposited an amount of rs. 35,859. 25, appellant No. 2 deposited a sum of Rs. 24,589. 20 and appellant no. 3 deposited an amount of Rs. 50,203/- for purchase of 108 quintals of sugar and Rs. 7,838/- for purchase of wheat with the Collector, Distt. Dindori for distribution through fair price shops. Aforesaid sugar and wheat was confiscated and the petitioners were prosecuted on a charge of violation of the provisions of m. P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1991 framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Petitioners were acquitted by the Court of Special Judge on the ground that there was no violation by them of the scheme. During the pendency of Criminal case, sugar as well as wheat were sold and thus, were not available for being returned to the petitioners after their due acquittal. ( 2. ) HOWEVER, the Special Court while acquitting the petitioners confiscated the amount of Rs. 1,09,870/ -. To this extent, petitioners preferred criminal Appeal No. 1152/01, which was allowed by this Court on 25-2-2002 with the following operative portion :- "as there was acquittal of the accused persons, there was no justification for confiscating sugar or its sale proceeds to the State. The amount deposited by the appellants should in all fairness be refunded to them. The respondents are, therefore, directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellants to them. In the memo of appeal there is also a prayer for repayment of Rs. 7,838/-being the price of wheat seized by the respondent No. 5 from the shop of the appellant No. 3 Sharda Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta bhandar, Shahpura. This wheat was not the subject matter of the special case and, therefore, no order can be passed in respect of that amount in this appeal. Respondent No. 5 SDO, Shahpura will look into this matter and pass a suitable order in respect of the amount of rs. 7,838/ -. The order of this Court relating to repayment of the price of sugar to the appellants be complied with within two months of the date of this order. Respondent No. 5 SDO, Shahpura will look into this matter and pass a suitable order in respect of the amount of rs. 7,838/ -. The order of this Court relating to repayment of the price of sugar to the appellants be complied with within two months of the date of this order. " ( 3. ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order, a sum of Rs. 1,09,870/- was paid to the petitioners in July, 2002. However, the amount of price of wheat, i. e. , rs. 7,838/- was not paid to the petitioners. Similarly, interest on the refunded amount was also not paid, therefore, the petitioners submitted applications in august, 2002 to the Collector, Dindori that the payment of the aforesaid be made to the petitioners. These applications are on record as Annexures P-3, p-3a, P-3b, P-3c and P-3d of various dates. No heed was paid to such applications. Hence, this petition. ( 4. ) THIS writ petition is opposed on the ground that the interest was demanded in Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2001 and the same was not allowed. This being so, it is contended by Shri G. P. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate that the prayer of the petitioners regarding interest would be deemed to have been denied and it cannot now be claimed through the present writ petition. ( 5. ) SHRI Singh, learned Govt. Advocate relied upon for this purpose on sub-section (2) of Section 34 of CPC, which is as follows :- "where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie. " ( 6. ) THIS apart it has been contended by the learned Govt. Advocate that the prayer of the petitioners is also barred by the principles of res judicata. Petitioners had made a prayer in Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2001 for grant of interest which was not accepted by this Court while rendering judgment in the said appeal. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to file writ petition and claim a relief which was not granted earlier by this Court. ( 7. Petitioners had made a prayer in Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2001 for grant of interest which was not accepted by this Court while rendering judgment in the said appeal. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to file writ petition and claim a relief which was not granted earlier by this Court. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. ( 8. ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners were allotted fair price shops under the m. P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1991. They were prosecuted for violation of provisions of the scheme which ultimately ended in their acquittal. Sections 6-A to 6-D of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provide for confiscation of essential commodities, issue of show-cause notice before confiscation of essential commodities and the manner of appeal to be preferred in case of grievance by the order of confiscation under Section 6-C. Section 6-C is relevant for the purpose of present writ petition and is therefore being reproduced below:- "6-C. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under Section 6-A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to the State government concerned and the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. (2) Where an order under Section 6-A is modified or annulled by the State Government, or where in a 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 food-grains, 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. ) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a person from whom confiscation is made becomes entitled to refund of price as well as interest if his case is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 6-C. Admittedly, an order of confiscation against petitioners was made whereas they were acquitted and the order of confiscation was set aside (annulled) by this Court in Criminal appeal No. 1152/2001. This made them entitled to refund with interest by virtue of sub-section (2 ). Entitlement of this nature is conferred by statutory provision which cannot be allowed to be taken away by respondents in any manner. It enjoins a duty on the departmental authority to make the payment of the price of essential commodities to the person concerned on his acquittal by Judicial authorities. Even the Court was not invested with any kind of discretion to deny interest on such amount. This being so, non-grant of interest by this Court in criminal appeal will not preclude the petitioners from seeking interest which became their statutory right on being acquitted by Criminal Court. It emerges from the language of sub-section (2) that even the High Court while rendering judgment of acquittal and setting aside order of confiscation was not empowered to deny interest. It emerges from the language of sub-section (2) that even the High Court while rendering judgment of acquittal and setting aside order of confiscation was not empowered to deny interest. It was not invested with any kind of discretion in the matter of acceptance of claim regarding interest. I may profitably refer to this Courts decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deena Nath Kedarnath, 1995 mplj 692 , wherein it has been held:- "under the above provisions, when an order of confiscation is annulled or when prosecution for breach or violation of the provisions of the order has ended in acquittal of the person and when the property seized is not possible to be returned, the person shall be paid the price of the goods with reasonable interest, as if such property is sold to the Government. The price to be paid for such goods is fixed in case of food-grains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of section 3; in case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-C) of Section 3; and in case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3. Thus, the person entitled to have the price of the essential commodity seized with reasonable interest in two eventualities : (i) when the order of confiscation is set aside in appeal; and (ii) when the prosecution launched against the person has ended in his acquittal. Payment of the price of the essential commodity and interest therefor shall be payable only if the order of confiscation is set aside or the person concerned is acquitted. The order of acquittal is sine qua non for payment of price and reasonable interest. The words "such person shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of Section 6-A be paid the price therefor" in Section 6-C (2) are significant and material, particularly the words "be paid". Under this section a duty is imposed to make payment and a right is created to get payment of the price of the essential commodity and reasonable interest therefor. Duty to make payment can only be discharged by an authority who actually holds the goods and who has power to sell the goods. Under this section a duty is imposed to make payment and a right is created to get payment of the price of the essential commodity and reasonable interest therefor. Duty to make payment can only be discharged by an authority who actually holds the goods and who has power to sell the goods. This section does not speak about a direction or order to make payment, but the emphasis is on the words be paid which means a duty is to be discharged by making payment. Under the scheme of the Essential Commodities Act, the power to seize essential commodities, confiscate them and sell it is with the collector and not with the Courts. Exclusion of jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Courts can be brought about by setting up tribunals or Authority having limited jurisdiction in limited fields. A reading of the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities act, 1955, it is clear that there are two different authorities created, viz. , one for trial of offences and another for seizure of essential commodities, passing of order of confiscation and to dispose of the essential commodities. The power to dispose of the essential commodity vests with the Collector and, therefore, payment of the price and interest on the price of the essential commodity, in case of acquittal of the person or in case of order of confiscation being set aside, is that of the Collector and not of the Judicial Magistrate. As the Collector is the authority to make payment of the price of the essential commodity illegally confiscated, the application for refund of the price with reasonable interest thereon shall lie to the collector and not to the Judicial Magistrate". ( 10. ) KEEPING the aforesaid in mind, it may be safely held that mere absence of grant of interest in Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2001 will not deprive the petitioners of their right to receive interest. It was only when the petitioners were acquitted and the order of confiscation was set aside that there accrued a right in their favour to receive reasonable interest from the respondents and the respondents became duty bound to pay reasonable interest to them by virtue of sub-section (2 ). Accordingly, they submitted various applications revealed in annexures P-3, P-3 A to P-3d. Such applications having not been granted, the writ petition has been rightly filed which deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, they submitted various applications revealed in annexures P-3, P-3 A to P-3d. Such applications having not been granted, the writ petition has been rightly filed which deserves to be allowed. Section 34 (2)of CPC is out of place because there was neither civil suit nor a decree in the matter. Equally, there is no scope for application of principle of res judicata in the absence of necessary ingredients. ( 11. ) IN the result, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to make payment of interest on Rs. 1,09,870/- at reasonable rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( 12. ) AS regards price of wheat, it may be seen that the wheat was also confiscated from the petitioners and on account of acquittal of the petitioners, they became entitled to the amount of price of wheat which would also be liable to be paid/refunded with reasonable interest. Needless to say that reasonable rate in the present case may be the rate which was applicable to fixed deposits with nationalised banks for a period of five years during relevant period because a period of more than five years has already elapsed. Respondents having acted in utter disregard of specific statutory provision are also liable to pay to the petitioners cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 3000/-, if already certified.