- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. Both the aforesaid petition have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order 1-6-82 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.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants contended that deal, an essential commodity] was seized from the possession of the applicants and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hathras, by means of the order dated 13-4-82 directed the sale of the coal and bricks of the applicants so seized. Against that order of the Sub-Divisional 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 dis missed the appeal of the applicants as not maintainable holding that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was an interlocutory order against which no appeal lay. The Border dated 13-4-82 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act provides that where the Collector is of the Opinion that the essential com modity 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 6-A appeal is provided in Section 6-C of the Act at the instance of any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation passed under Section 6-A. 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 6-A (2) which is in the nature of n interlocutory order. Section 6-A (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 6-A (3), he would be entitled to get the auction money of the sold commodity. In support of his submission that against the order dated 13-4-82 passed by the Sub-Divisional 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 6-A 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 6-C itself provide an appeal against the order of confiscation alone passed under Section 6-A of the Act and no other order. In view of that statutory provision of Section 6-C of the Act no appeal lies against the order directing auction sale of the seized articles and that is an order of inter locutory 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.
(3.) 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 sub-sec-tion (3) of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act the sale proceeds, after deducting the necessary expenses, may be released in favour of the applicants. .;