Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions have submitted that the provision contained in Section 6-E of the EC Act does not create absolute bar over Criminal Courts to deal with seized essential commodities and other articles, under Section 457 Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel, as long as confiscation proceedings are not initiated by issuance of notice under Section 6-B of the EC Act, confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be pending. Referring to the setting of words and expression "pending confiscation under Section 6-A", it has been contended that the aforesaid expression deciphers legislative scheme that the ouster of jurisdiction of Criminal Court to deal with property under Section 457 Cr.P.C. would take place only with commencement of confiscation proceedings in the manner provided under Section 6-B of the EC Act. Merely upon seizure, as contemplated under Section 6-A of the EC Act or even till the stage of production and inspection of essential commodity before the Collector, ouster of jurisdiction does not take place and it is only when the Collector decides to initiate proceedings by issuance of show cause notice, as envisaged under Section 6-B of the EC Act that from that stage, Section 6-E steps in to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Collector by putting embargo on the jurisdiction of other Courts, Tribunal and Authority in the matter of disposal of essential commodity and other articles mentioned in the provision. It has been argued that in view of judicial pronouncement, whether or not the confiscation proceedings have to be commenced, lies in the discretion of the Collector and it is not obligatory that in every case where essential commodity or other articles have been seized and produced before the Collector that he should necessarily proceed to initiate confiscation proceedings. It has also been contended that the exclusion of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts cannot be readily inferred unless such conclusion is completely irresistible and, ordinarily, even if under the statute, there exists special provision dealing with disposal of property in various proceedings, there is no embargo on jurisdiction of the Magistrate to deal with the property and pass appropriate orders for disposal invoking jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

As far as operation of provision contained under Section 6-E, at the stage of pendency of appeal under Section 6-C before the judicial authority is concerned, the argument is that, that is not a stage where confiscation proceedings can be said to be pending and, therefore, while adjudicating upon appeals against order of confiscation, in the absence of any special procedure provided under Section 6-C, the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure would again come into play. The judicial authority is very much empowered to deal with essential commodity in relation to its disposal, release etc. as per the provision under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the submissions is that during pendency of the appeal against confiscation under Section 6-C of the Act, the competent authority would be a judicial authority and not the Collector to pass order with regard to disposal under the provision contained in Section 457 Cr.P.C.

10.Chapter XXXIV of CRPC contains a provision with regard to disposal of the property pending appeal as well as at the conclusion of trial. While Section 451 Cr.P.C. contains a provision with regard to grant of interim custody or disposal of property in certain cases, Section 452 Cr.P.C. contains provision with regard to disposal of property upon conclusion of trial. Section 457 Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure by the police upon seizure of property whenever seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provision of the Code and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such orders as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained respecting the custody and production of such property. These are the provisions of general application and by virtue of these provisions, a Criminal Court trying an offence punishable under IPC or under any State enactment, would normally have jurisdiction to pass order with regard to interim custody or disposal, as the case may be, of the property seized by the police or any other competent authority.

If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners were to be accepted that the jurisdiction of the Collector would be ousted only when confiscation proceedings commence with issuance of notice under Section 6-B of the EC Act, it would mean that before commencement of confiscation proceeding by issuance of notice under Section 6-B, the Magistrate as well as the Collector both would be exercising jurisdiction to deal with essential commodity simultaneously, because under sub - Section (2) of Section 6-A of the EC Act, the Collector is empowered to order sale of essential commodity if he is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice to do so. The aforesaid provision dealing with power of the Collector to sell the essential commodity is applicable even before commencement of confiscation proceedings by issuance of show cause notice under Section 6-B. That means, even if confiscation proceedings, in technical sense, are not pending because no show cause notice has been issued under Section 6-B, not only the Collector may exercise power to sell essential commodity as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 6-A, if the literal meaning is assigned to expression " pending confiscation under Section 6-A" even the Magistrate could pass an order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. Placing such interpretation on the scheme based on literal meaning, would create friction in the operation of the statue resulting in absurdity and create anomalous situation resulting in conflict of jurisdiction where despite an order passed by the Magistrate, the Collector may exercise power to sell the essential commodity and the vice versa situation where after the Collector has passed an order of sale of essential commodity in exercise of powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 6-A, yet the Magistrate invokes jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and passes order with regard to release of essential commodity or other articles, to any person who claims to be entitled to the same which may include owner of the essential commodity or the person from whom such essential commodity is seized.