Mannu Mal vs State of U.P.

Kundan Singh, J.—Both the aforesaid petition have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order 1682 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1982 as not maintainable and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The learned Counsel for the applicants contended that deal, an essential commodity] was seized from the possession of the applicants and the SubDivisional Magistrate, Hathras, by means of the order dated 13482 directed the sale of the coal and bricks of the applicants so seized. Against that order of the SubDivisional Magistrate Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1982 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who dismissed the same as not maintainable. Now the grievance expressed is the above petitions is that the learned Session Judge had wrongly dismissed the appeal of the applicants as not maintainable holding that the order passed by the learned SubDivisional Magistrate was an interlocutory order against which no appeal lay.

The Border dated 13482 was passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate under Section 6A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act. Subsection (2) of Section 6A of the Act provides that where the Collector is of the Opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do he may order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or any other law for the time being in force or where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction. Against the [order passed under Section 6A appeal is provided in Section 6C of the Act at the instance of any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation passed under Section 6A. In the present case no order of confiscation of the articles seized has been passed. As such the order passed by the learned Magistrate was covered by the provisions of Section 6A(2) which is in the nature of n interlocutory order. Section 6A(3) of the Act lays down three conditions for the return of the sale proceeds, after deducting expenses, to the owner of the property if the essential commodity is sold. If any order is passed in favour of the owner under Section 6A(3), he would be entitled to get the auction money of the sold commodity.

In support of his submission that against the order dated 13482 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate appeal was maintainable the learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the case Ram Autar v. State of U.P., 1981 A.L.J. 150 in which it has been considered that the order of auction sale can be treated as an order passed under Section 6A of the Act and against that order appeal would lie. I have given my anxious thought to the above submission of the learned Counsel and I regret to express my disagreement with the view of the learned Single Judge expressed in the case of Ram Autar (supra), in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 6C itself provide an appeal against the order of confiscation alone passed under Section 6A of the Act and no other order.

In view of that statutory provision of Section 6C of the Act no appeal lies against the order directing auction sale of the seized articles and that is an order of interlocutory nature. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. In view of that legal position, I decline to interfere in the present petitions.

Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that if the case of the applicants falls in any of the conditions mentioned in subsection(3) of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act the sale proceeds, after deducting the necessary expenses, may be released in favour of the applicants.