K.L. Shrivastava, J.
1. This appeal was initially directed against the order of acquittal dated 30-1-1987 passed by the A.C.J.M., Indore in Criminal Case No. 468 of 1983 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, (for short the 'Act'); 1955 and it has been ordered that the sale-proceeds of the seized rice be paid to the respondent No. 1, Omprakash with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of seizure till payment.
2. Circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: According to the prosecution on 20-1-1976 on receipt of information Manpur Police seized the truck loaded with 100 quintals of rice. It was standing by the side of A.B. Road, Manpur.
3. The rice belonged to the respondent No. 1 and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were respectively, the owner and the driver of the truck.
4. The Manpur Police eventually prosecuted the respondents for contravention of Clause 4 of the M. P. Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1971 (for short the '1971 Order') made under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 (for short the 'Rules'). The respondents 2 and 3 were, in addition, prosecuted for breach of Clause 3 of the M. P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 made under the Act. The seizure of the rice was reported to the Collector, Indore as required Under Section 6A of the 'Act' who on 7-2-1976 sold it for Rs. 38,700/- by auction.
5. At this very stage it may be pointed out that there is no controversy that the allegations against the respondents that they were exporting rice from Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra constituted breach of Clause 3 and not Clause 4 of the '1971 Order'. Clause 4 of the 'Order' relates to movement of rice within the 'border area' as defined in Clause 2(a) of the said Order.
6. It may also be stated that M. P. Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1957 made under 'the Act' was already in force when the '1971 Order' made under the 'Rules' was enforced. '1957 Order' similarly provides in respect of export and transport: The provision regarding export is to be found in Clause 3A of the 1957 Order.
7. In the decision in Adarsha Krishi Sewa Kendra v. State of M. P., AIR 1981 M.P. 44 = 1980 MPLJ 810, it has been pointed out that in the event of conflict between the provisions of M. P. Fertilizer (Prices Control) Order (1974), and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 under the Act the Provisions in the Order under the Rules made under the Defence of India Act would prevail. It may be pointed out that in the instant case there is no conflict between the provision of the 1957 Order and 1971 Order as respects export of rice.
8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 30-1-1982 acquitted the respondents. Order for the disposal of the truck having already been made, the sale-proceeds of the seized rice amounting to Rs. 38,700/- constituted the only property remaining for disposal and the learned Magistrate with reference to Section 6C(2) of the 'Act' ordered that the sale-proceeds together with interest be paid to the respondent No. 1.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the respondent No. 1 expressly made a declaration to the Collector that he has no objection to the rice being confiscated, the order regarding the disposal of property passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be set aside.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that there was no such declaration. In this connection he has invited my attention to the Show Cause Notices dated 21-2-1976 issued to respondent No. 1 Under Section 6B of the Act regarding confiscation of the rice as well as the truck wherein it has expressly been stated that subsequent to the sale of rice the respondent No. 1 had on 17-2-1976 claimed that the rice belonged to him.
11. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that the respondent No. 1 had at any time conceded that he had no objection to the confiscation of rice.
12. Section 6C(1) of the 'Act' provides for appeal from an order of confiscation to the judicial authority appointed by the State and Sub-section (2) providing for payment of price to the person acquitted reads thus: -
'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 therefore us if the essential commodity had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential commodity.'
The provision also prescribes the mode for the determination of the price.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that in view of the aforesaid provision in Section 6C(2) of the Act, the said respondent was, under law entitled to receive the sale-proceeds and no interference is called for.
14. It may be pointed out that an appeal Under Section 454(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') from the order passed by a Magistrate regarding disposal of property at the conclusion of the trial lies to the Sessions Judge and not to the High Court. Section 386(a) of the 'Code' deals with the powers of the Court in an appeal from an order of acquittal. As already pointed out the present appeal is not against the order of acquittal, the situation that has arisen in the present case is governed by the provision in Section 454 of the Code which deals with appeal against order for disposal of property. Sub-section (3) is as under: -
'The Powers referred to in Sub-section (2) may also be exercised by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision while dealing with the case in which the order referred to in Sub-section (1) was made.'
Sub-section (2) of Section 454 of the Code is in these words :-
'On such appeal, the Appellate Court may direct the order to be stayed pending disposal of the appeal, or modify, alter or annul the order and make any further orders that may be just.'
Reference in this connection may also usefully be made to the decision in Balamal v. State, AIR 1970 Gujarat 26.
15. In the ultimate analysis, as a result of foregoing discussion I find that the order regarding disposal of property passed by the learned Magistrate is well warranted in law and is not amenable to interference.
16. The respondents 2 and 3 are in no way concerned with the order regarding disposal of the sale-proceeds of the rice.
17. In the final result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.