SHAMBHU DAYAL AGARWALA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
~·· 
_r 
t 
SHAMBHU DAYAL AGARWALA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
MAY 3, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Sections 3, 6A to 6C, 6£ and · 
7( l)(b)-:-Seizure of essential commodity under section 6A-Breach of 
?rder under ~ection 3-Prosecution proceedings pending-,-Bar on 
courts to make an order with regard to the possession, delivery, dis-
oosal, rel~ase or distribution of such commodity except the Collector-
Whether the Collector empowered to release the seized goods to owner 
or to the person from whom the commodity is seized? 
On September. 20, 1987 the officers of the Enforcement Branch 
raided the factory premises of the Appellant engaged in the 
manufacture of Mustard Oil. 562 bags of mustard seeds and 262 tins of 
oil were seized for alleged violation of the conditions of licence as well as 
orders issued under section 3 of the Act. An F .I.R. was lodged with the 
police and as required under section 6A, the report of the seizure of the 
goods was also made to the Collector followed by filing of a Charge-
sheet before the Special Judge. The petitioner moved the High Court by 
a Writ Petition for quashing the proceedings. The learned single Judge 
of the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition reserving liberty to the 
Petitioner to move the concerned Collector for release of the seized 
goods. The Petitioner accordingly moved an application under section 
6E before the concerned Additional Collector for release of the seized 
~oods. The Collector dropped the confiscation proceedings and ordered 
the release of the seized goods to the Petitioner. Against this order the 
State Government preferred a Revision to the High Court. The High 
Court allowed the Revision and set aside the order of release of the 
"ized goods passed by the Collector holding that .;oder the provision• 
of section 6A read with section 6E of the Act, the Collector had no 
power to release the seized goods. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
has come up in appeal by special leave to this Court. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, th\s Court. 
HELD: The Scheme of sections 6A. 6B and 6C makes it clear that 
after the es~ential commodity is seized and the same is inspected hy the 
concerned Collector, the latter has to decide after complying with th• 
H 
987 
A 
B 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
procedure set out in section 6B, whether or not to confiscate the essen-
tial commodity. Since the procedure delineated in section 6B is time 
consuming, the Collector has been given special power to sell the essen-
tial commodity as stated in sub-section (2) of section 6A ifit is subject to 
speedy and natural decay or it is expedient in public interest so to do. If 
the Collector decides not to confiscate the commodity and if no prosecu-
tion is launched or contemplated the commodity has to he returned to 
the owner or person from wltom it was seized. If in the meantime it is 
sold in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 6A, the price 
of eomniodity has to-·be ·paid as provided hy sub-section (3) of section 
6A.;/998l:-E] 
C 
Suh-section (2) of section 6C uses the prefix 'return' followed by 
the words 'the essential commodity seized' and not the word 'release'. 
It seems that having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and 
purpose of the statute and the mischief it seeks to guard against, the 
word 'release' is used in the limited sense of release for sale, etc., so that 
the same becomes available to the consumer public. There could be no 
D question 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 complet~ and before the termination of the pro-
.secution in the acquittal of the offender. [998F-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
E 
No.310of1990. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated Jl.5.1988 of the Calcutta 
High Court in Cr!. Rvn. No. 402 of 1988. 
P.P. Rao, R.K. Gupta and P.C. Kapur for the Appellant. 
\ -
.ca; -
.J 
-
Kapil Sibbal, Additional Solicitor General, G. Venkatesh Rao, 
-.J 
D.K. Sinha, J.R. Das, H.K. Puri and A. Paul for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
AHMADI, J. Special /eave granted. 
The short que~tion which arises for our determination is whether 
~. 
the Collector to whom a report of seizure of any essential commodity is 
made under section 6A of the Essential Commodities 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.