When wheat seized under Essential commodites Act should not be released on supratnama?

 This Court while dealing with a similar issue in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 549, held that whenever any essential commodity is seized, pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector has no power to order release of the commodity in favour of the owner. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and purpose of the statute and the mischief it seeks to guard, it was further held that the word “release” in Section 6-E is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc. so that the same becomes available to the consumer public. The court held as under: “… No unqualified and unrestricted power has been conferred on the Collector of releasing the commodity in the sense of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood completed and before the termination of the prosecution in the acquittal of the offender. Such a view would render Clause (b) of Section 7(1) totally nugatory and would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act. The view that the Act itself contemplates a situation which would render Section 7(1)(b) otiose where the essential commodity is disposed of by the Collector under Section 6-A(2) is misconceived. Section 6-A does not empower the Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of essential commodity, a fine not exceeding the market value of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized along with the essential commodity. Only a limited power of sale of the commodity in the manner prescribed by Section 6-A(2) is granted. The power conferred by Section 6- A(2) to sell the essential commodity has to be exercised in public interest for maintaining the supplies and for securing the equitable distribution of the essential commodity.”
Criminal - Release of seized articles - Sections 3, 6-A and 6-C of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - High Court held that continuing seizure of seized articles of Respondents by Appellant for long time might not be justified and therefore High Court issued direction for release of wheat - Hence, this Appeals - Whether, order passed by High Court was justified - Held, High Court had not even taken prima facie view that State Government had not issued twice any order/notification under Section 3 of Act though FIR made reference to Clause 6(a) of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued under Section 3 of Act - Further, there was nothing on record on basis of which issue of ownership had been decided by High Court - There was no cogent material on record before High Court on basis of which direction to release goods so seized could be issued - In subsequent order dealing with ownership of wheat High Court had only taken note of fact that as Respondents were prepared to furnish adequate/sufficient security to satisfaction of Court below for release of wheat in question, wheat could have been released by CJM - In case CJM came to conclusion after appreciating evidence on record that Respondents/Applicants were not in position to show any document which may show their ownership to wheat, there was no justification for High Court to issue directions for release of such material merely because Applicant could furnish security - High Court had ignored fact that any order passed under Section 6-A of Act was appealable under Section 6-C of Act - Hence, order passed by High Court was not justified 

Supreme Court of India

State Of Bihar & Anr vs Arvind Kumar & Anr on 23 July, 2012

Citation;2012CriLJ3756, (2012)12SCC395,

Print Page