P.N. Bakshi, J.
1. Twenty bags of rice weighing 171/2 quintals were seized from the possession of Balram Lal of village Madhopur, Police Station Chandauli, District Varanasi by the Station Officer. He lodged a report with the Collector under Section 3/7 of the Essential Com-rnodities Act. The case set up was that the rice, which had been seized, belonged to the Fair Price Shop of Gopal Krishna Srivastava son of Balram Lal and that Balram Lal was taking the rice for selling it in the black-market. It is also alleged that when asked to show his records Gopal Krishna refused to show his stock Register. It was therefore, prayed that permission, be granted for sale of the rice seized by the police. A show cause notice was issued to Balram Lal. He set up a case that he was a farmer and that the rice belonged to him. He was taking the rice for sale in order to earn money for meeting the marriage expenses of his son Kamla Kant Srivastava, which was to take place on 12th May, 1980. He was trying to negotiate an agreement with one Jagannath for sale of the rice. Jagannath also contended that he has purchased rice from Balram and that the rice belonged to him. After considering the respective cases of the parties the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the rice belonged to the Fair Price Shop which was owned by Gopal Krishna and both Balram Lal and Jagannath had failed to prove their ownership of the same. He, therefore. directed that the rice be confiscated and sold and proceeds deposited in the Treasury for disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi by Balram Lal which has been dismissed on 22nd September, 1980. Hence this revision.
2. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Counsel for the State has taken a preliminary obiection that no appeal lay to the Sessions Judge. Varanasi from the order passed by the Collector. He bases this argument on the phraseology of Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act and urges that there is no proof that the Sessions Judge was appointed by the State Government concerned and had the judicial authority to hear an appeal against an order of confiscation under tnat section. I am unable to appreciate this submission for a number of reasons. In the first place no such objection was taken before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. If the State had taken up such an objection it would have been possible for material being placed before the Court that the Sessions Judge had the authority to pass the impugned order. The State submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Varanasi without any objection, From this circumstance a reasonable inference can be drawn against the State that the court of the Sessions Judge was in fact vested with the jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Otherwise I find no reason whatsoever for this objection not being taken from that Court. Further if the State was really aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass the order it should have filed a revision in this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. This has also not been done. In the instant case the question of jurisdiction is decedent upon the establishment of facts, which have not been objected to by the State or before this Court. As such, I am of the opinion, that the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the State has no legs to stand upon and must, therefore, be rejected outright.
3. Counsel for the applicant has argued that for the order of confiscation is illegal because it is not stated specifically as to which is the control order which has been infringed by the applicant. In this connection the State counsel has rightly pointed out the existence of the U.P. Food Grain Dealers Licensing and Restriction of Hoarding Order 1976 under which no person is authorised to carry on business or to deal as a commission agent with respect of foodgrains covered by that order except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued in this behalf by the Licencing Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out to me form A which is the application for grant of licence and Form B which lays down the terms and conditions of the licence. Under Form B the liceneee is permitted to do business at a specified place and to store his foodgrains at such place. In the instant case the finding that has been recorded is that the contraband rice which has been seized by the Police, belonged to the Fair Price Shop of Gopal Krishna Srivastava. As such the rice should have been sold and stored at that Place. The rice, as a matter of fact, was seized while it was being negotiated for sale in the market. The defence set up by Balram Lal, father of the licencee Gopal Krishna has been repelled by the Courts below. It is thus clear that the rice belonged to the Fair Price Shop. As such, its sale at a place other than the Fair Price Shop was a clear contravention of the provisions of U.P. Grain Dealers Licensing and Restriction of Hoarding Order. 1976. In this view of the matter, the Court below was perfectly justified in confiscating the rice in question.
5. Powers of revision under Section 439, Cr. P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly and only in those cases where there is manifest miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the impugned order which has been passed by the Collector is that the rice shall be sold and its proceeds deposited in the Treasury for disposal in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if the accused is ultimately found not guilty in the trial he would get the price of the rice deposited in the manner aforesaid. No prejudice would be caused to him, as a result of the sale of the rice at this stage. As such the impugned order cannot be interfered with. I am supported in my view by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1979 All Cri C 201. Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P.
6. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court reported in 1979 All Cri R 210 (213), Shiv Charan Lal v. State. That case was decided upon its own facts. In that case the position was that the police had submitted the final report with regard to the prosecution of the accused under Section 3/7 of the E. C. Act. Subsequently an application was made under Section 6A of the Act for confiscation of the commodity. In those circumstances the single Judge was of opinion that further evidence was required for proof of the prosecution case and for confiscation of the commodity. In the instant case a report was lodged by the Station Officer in writing and written replies were submitted by both the applicants Balram Lal as well as Jagannath who claim to be the owner of the rice, The application and objections were considered by the Magistrate and the plea taken up by Balram having been rejected the instant order of confiscation was passed. It cannot be said that this order is illegal or unjust which requires interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional powers.
7. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby rejected.