In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur. SB Civil Writ Petition No.1459/99 Ghasi Lal v. Additional District Collector, Karauli & another Date of order February 17, 2009 Hon'ble Justice JR Goyal Mr. SC Gupta, for petitioner Ms. Raj Sharma, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for State This writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness and validity of the order of Sessions Judge, Karauli dated 11.2.99, whereby the order of Additional District Collector, Karauli dated 28.1.93 was upheld, whereby order to confiscate 155 bags of Super Phosphate Atul Brand, was passed under S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short 'the Act'). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order passed by a criminal court, after full trial in the case of Essential Commodities Act, shall prevail over the order of confiscation passed by Additional District Collector or Appellate Court under the provisions of S.6A of the Act, and the petitioner has not only been acquitted but a direction to return the seized fertilizer or its price, to the accused, has also been given by the competent court. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate supported the impugned judgment. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under S.3/7 of the Act by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Gangapur City, vide judgment dated 22.7.97 wherein it was further ordered that accused is entitled to get the seized fertilizer back and in case the same has been disposed of, the sale price be returned to him after the period of limitation, whereas after the judgment of regular criminal court - Sessions Judge, Karauli vide impugned order, while deciding the appeal preferred against the order of Additional District Collector, passed under S.6A of the Act, declined to release the seized fertilizer in favour of the petitioner. At this stage it would be appropriate to have a look on the provisions contained in S.6C(2) of the Act, which reads as under: - “Where an order under section 6A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such persons shall, except as provided by sub- section (3) of section 6A, be paid the price therefor as if the essential commodity, had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential commodity and such price shall be determined- (i) in the case of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 3; (ii)in the case of sugar, in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (3C) of section 3; and (iii)in the case of any other essential commodity, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3.” According to the above provision, it is very much clear that if a person concerned is acquitted and in case it is not possible for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, then in that case price thereof be paid to such concerned person, except in the matters which come within the ambit of S.6A(3) of the Act. In the instant matter, it is not the case where criminal court has ordered for confiscation of the goods while acquitting the person concerned, rather it was clearly ordered by the criminal court that the sold price of the goods be returned to the accused after limitation of appeal. In these circumstances, the judgment and direction given by the criminal court shall prevail, which has been passed after full trial and also the mandate of S.6C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.99, passed under S.6C of the Act, is set aside and it is directed that action be taken in regard to the seized fertilizer in accordance with the order passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Gangapur City - dated 22.7.97, in Sessions Case No.3/96. (J.R.Goyal) J. db