MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 24.12.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rat/am in Misc. Cri. Case No. 11 of 1992.

(2.) THE short facts are that police are said to have seized certain quantity of wheat for an offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') and gave the wheat in Supratnama of petitioner. Subsequently the police completed investigation and have filed the challan in the special Court (Sessions Court). Simultaneously it appears that the Collector has started proceedings regarding confiscation under section 6A of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Panel Lawyer is unable to show any provision under the Act which empowers the Collector to pass order about custody of the property during the aforesaid proceedings. Consequently it is plain that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code about custody of property pending enquiry and trial must be brought into force. The Special Court could not have refused to exercise jurisdiction by dismissing the application as it has done. Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar (1991 Crimes Vol. 1 page 311) has taken a view that even during the pendency of proceedings of confiscation, the Sessions Court, as special Court can exercise powers regarding custody of the property.