JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. Admit. 2. This revision application is filed against the order passed on 11th January, 2011, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Warora thereby dismissing the appeal filed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and confirming the order of the Collector passed on 22.9.2009 confiscating the articles, which were pulses stored in warehouse belonging to respondent No. 2 by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It was the case of the applicants that the pulses were stored in the warehouse of respondent No. 2 by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 under five receipts which were pledged with it by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as a security for loan obtained by them from the applicant-Bank. Under Section 32of the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959 the goods stored at the warehouse can be pledged by deposit of warehouse receipts with a banker or a financer, and accordingly, the warehouse receipts were deposited by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with Warora branch of applicant No. 1. Sometime later, a raid was conducted by the Tahsildar on the warehouse of respondent No. 2 of which respondent No. 3 was the godown keeper, and it was found that the articles in question had been stored at the warehouse without seeking permission of the Collector under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It was also noted that the licence that was issued for purchase and sale of pulses by the Collector to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act did not permit storage of these articles at the warehouse of respondent No. 2. As there was no permission for storing of these articles at the warehouse, the Collector by his order passed on 22.9.2009 in case No. 92/E.C. Act/2009 held that storage without licence amounted to violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and directed the articles to be confiscated to the State. 3. The respondent No. 6 preferred a Writ Petition against the said order and the Writ Petition No. 4359/2009 came to be dismissed on 7th December, 2009. In that Writ Petition, the applicant-Bank was not a party and, therefore, it preferred a substantive petition being a Writ Petition No. 688/2010 contending that its substantive right had been infringed inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was granted to it. In that Writ Petition, the applicant-Bank was not a party and, therefore, it preferred a substantive petition being a Writ Petition No. 688/2010 contending that its substantive right had been infringed inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was granted to it. This Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 9.2.2010 holding that the applicants shall have liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act and if the appeal is preferred by the applicants, same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority on its merits without being influenced by the observations of this Court in its order passed on 7.12.2009 in Writ Petition No. 4359/2009. 4. Thereafter, an appeal came to be preferred by the applicants before the Competent Authority i.e. Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Warora and it was decided on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11.1.2011, dismissing the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred the present Criminal Revision Application. 6. I have heard Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mr. GR. Kothari holding for Shri V.R. Choudhari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a perverse findings without considering material evidence on record inasmuch as the order is also against the provisions of law as it does not take into account the effect of a creditor having a first charge on the property subjected to confiscation. He submits that the Collector, before passing an order of confiscation, ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the applicants as the first charge was held by the applicants and that it was having possession in law over the articles, which articles had been pledged in accordance with Section 32 of the Bombay Warehouses Act as the security for repayment of loan obtained by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from the applicant-Bank. He submits that the Additional Sessions Judge, at the most, could have allowed sale of the articles by public auction with a direction that sale proceeds be credited to the loan account of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 towards satisfaction of the outstanding loan. 6 and 7 from the applicant-Bank. He submits that the Additional Sessions Judge, at the most, could have allowed sale of the articles by public auction with a direction that sale proceeds be credited to the loan account of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 towards satisfaction of the outstanding loan. He, therefore, prays for interference of this Court. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 states that the applicants had not placed relevant material before the Collector and, therefore, there was no way, the learned Collector could have learnt if there was really any charge existing in favour of the applicants and if it was there, to what extent the amount of outstanding loan was. He submits that, therefore, this could be a fit case for remanding the matter for a fresh decision. He also submits that the applicants do not have any locus standi in the matter, as they were not the licence holders of the articles of the commodity in question. 9. Upon going through the paper book of this revision application, I find that there is great substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants and no substance in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. 10. The impugned order even on a cursory perusal can be held to be a perverse order as it records a finding in complete ignorance of the contents of the letter dated 25.6.2009 and 8.4.2009. These letters show that the applicant-Bank has only released partially the charge over the articles and the partial release was only to the extent of 100 bags of pulses and nothing more. There were in all 537 bags, which were pledged to the applicant-Bank, and it would then mean that the Bank even after these letters, continued to hold charge over remaining bags numbering about 437. It must be said here that so far as pledging of the articles by deposit of five warehouse receipts is concerned, there is no dispute raised by any of the parties. The dispute is about the quantity of the goods represented by these receipts, which was actually pledged with the applicant-Bank. This dispute can be resolved by calling upon the Bank to furnish the latest statement of account and also by directing the concerned authority to examine the warehouse record. The dispute is about the quantity of the goods represented by these receipts, which was actually pledged with the applicant-Bank. This dispute can be resolved by calling upon the Bank to furnish the latest statement of account and also by directing the concerned authority to examine the warehouse record. But, such verification should not deter this Court in finally disposing of the present revision application. So, once it has been found that the goods represented by five receipts have been pledged as a security for repayment of the loan, the creditor would be a person, who would be interested in the property of the goods and, therefore, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the creditor i.e. applicants by the Collector. This has not happened in this case and for this reason, I find that the applicant always had locus-standi in the matter. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. Apart from the above illegality, learned Additional Sessions Judge also appears to have halfheartedly read the contents of the two letters dated 25.6.2009 and 8th April 2009, which has resulted in recording of a perverse finding. I have already noted that the contents of these letters clearly indicate that the applicant-Bank continued to hold its charge over the remaining bags of pulses numbering about 437. I have also found that the applicant-Bank being the first charge holder, ought to have been heard. But, it has not been heard in this case and the order of confiscation of the goods has been passed. Therefore, remand of the case should ordinarily follow. But, there is something more to it. If this case is to be remanded only for the purpose of giving hearing to the applicants, it is going to be an exercise to achieve something which can be achieved now as the goods have already been sold and the money stands deposited in a nationalized Bank. The only question that now remains to be decided is whether this money can be allowed to be forfeited to state or be given to the applicants which be resolved by looking into the record available before this Court itself and now. This will avoid the delay. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the learned A.P.P. for remand. 12. This will avoid the delay. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the learned A.P.P. for remand. 12. As the applicants are having a first charge over the goods pledged about which there is no dispute, it would be in the fitness of things that the applicant gets its dues from appropriating the sale proceeds to the outstanding loan of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This can be secured by directing the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to credit the sale proceeds towards satisfaction of the loan amount which is outstanding against the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in their loan account and if any amount remains in balance after appropriation of the same towards satisfaction of the loan amount, only that amount shall be liable to be forfeited to the State. 13. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as it is arbitrary and perverse. It deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this revision application. 14. The revision application is allowed. 15. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 16. The order of the Collector dated 22.9.2009, passed in Case No. 92/E.C. Act 2009 is modified by giving a direction that the sale proceeds of the confiscated articles be credited to the loan account of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with the applicant-Bank and if any amount remains in balance after such appropriation, same shall stand forfeited to the State. Before remitting the amount of sale proceeds to applicant-Bank as directed herein above, the applicant-Bank shall submit latest statement of account and learned Collector is also at liberty to verify, if it is deemed appropriate, from the record of warehouse about the quantity of goods represented by five receipts, which have been pledged with the Bank of the applicant. Revision application is disposed of in above terms.