Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010201372025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./365/2025 ISMAIL ALI S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/O PACHIM CHAMARALI,P.O. AND P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MR. KAUSAR AHMED,MR. D K AGARWALA,ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 08/09/2025 Heard Mr. T Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai, in Murajhar P.S. Case No. 36/2025, rejecting the Page No.# 2/5 application of the petitioner for Zimma of the Petroleum products, seized from him on the ground that there exist a procedural bar under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. As projected in the criminal revision petition, on 13.03.2025, an FIR was lodged by one SI(P) Bhaskar Borah, Sub-Inspector of Assam Police, basing on an information received regarding illegal sale of petrol and diesel products in large quantities by the petitioner, herein. Basing on the said information, G.D. Entry No. 13 dated 13.03.2025 was registered and thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge of Murajhar Police Station, entrusted the matter to an Investigating Officer for enquiry. On 14.03.2025, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner in connection with the FIR lodged in the matter and produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai in PRC Case No.1402/2021 arising out of Murajhar P.S. Case No. 36/2025. On the same day, the Investigating Officer seized the following items:- 1) 8 nos. of plastic gallons containing 440 litres of Petrol, 2) 3 nos. of plastic gallons containing 165 litres of Diesel, 3) 21 nos. of 1 liter plastic bottles containing 21 litres of Petrol, 4) 3 nos. of 2 liter plastic bottles containing 2 litres of Petrol and 5) 2 nos. of ½ liter plastic bottles containing 21 litres of Petrol. 4. The petitioner, herein, by contending that the said items belongs to him and he is the owner of the same, had approached the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai, by way of filing a Zimma petition. The said Zimma petition was considered by the Trial Court and vide order dated 19.06.2025, the same was rejected as noticed, hereinabove. 5. Mr. T Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the order dated 19.06.2025, it was noted that for initiation of confiscation proceedings, the matter was referred to the learned District Commissioner, Hojai. 6. Mr. T Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the provisions of Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has submitted that the safe guards, as set out therein, has not been complied with, by the respondent authorities, till date and accordingly, he has instituted the present proceeding. Page No.# 3/5 7. Per contra, Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the present revision petition is limited to the order dated 19.06.2025, rejecting the application of the petitioner, herein, for being granted Zimma of the products, as seized in the matter from his possession. Accordingly, he submits that the subsequent action that would now be required to be taken by the respondent authorities in the matter cannot be considered in the present revision petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, is not in dispute. The petitioner has in the present proceeding assailed the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai in Murajhar P.S. Case No. 36/2025, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being granted Zimma of the petroleum products seized from his possession. 10. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding is to the effect that his right as reserved under the provisions of Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been infringed with. 11. This Court in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has perused the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 12. On a perusal of the provisions of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, when any essential commodity is seized, a report of such seizure without unreasonable delay is to be made to the Collector of the District in which such essential commodities is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of order passed under Section 3 of the said Act, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the essential commodity so seized. 13. Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 mandates that no order confiscating any essential commodity shall be made under Section 6A of the said Act, unless the owner of such essential commodity or the person from whom it is seized is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds of which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity and an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the ground of confiscation is provided and a reasonable opportunity of being heard is also provided. Page No.# 4/5 14. Section 6E of the said Act of 1955 being relevant to the issue arisen in the present proceeding is extracted herein below. 15. A perusal of the provisions of Section 6E of the said Act of 1955 would go to reveal that it also mandates that “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance”. The said provision leaves no scope of doubt and it clearly takes away all the powers granted to all the Courts or to any Court under any law for the time, being in force. The said provisions clearly shows that neither the Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act nor the Sessions Court working under the Criminal Procedural Court nor the Special Court exercising powers under the Criminal Procedural Court as provided under Section 12 of the said 1955 Act, can have any power or jurisdiction to pass orders regarding the property seized under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, if a commodity is an essential commodity under Section 3 of the said Act and if the essential commodity is seized, then it is only the Collector of the District, wherein the seizure was made and the State Government concerned, who would have the power to pass orders regarding the disposal of delivery, possession etc. of the essential commodity in question. 16. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 6E of the said Act of 1955, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai admittedly would have no jurisdiction to pass any order granting Zimma of the essential commodity involved in the present proceeding to the petitioner, herein. 17. The reasoning advanced in the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai, for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for Zimma on the ground of procedural bar under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, in the considered view of this Court is not erroneous, more so, when the report for initiation of action under Section 6A of the said Act of 1955 was already forwarded to the learned District Commissioner, Hojai in the matter. 18. In view of the bar existing in the matter in terms of Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, this Court is of the considered view that no error is found to exist in the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai in Murajhar P.S. Case No. 36/2025, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for Zimma of the petroleum products as seized from him. 19. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court and this Court having not found any Page No.# 5/5 error in the order dated 19.06.2025, impugned in the present proceeding, the present criminal revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 20. Before parting with the records of the case, it is provided that the jurisdictional District Commissioner, Hojai shall proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and also comply with the requirements, if not already complied with, as provided therein, under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, before passing of orders of confiscation of the petroleum products seized from the petitioner, herein, under Section 6A of the said Act. JUDGE Comparing Assistant