East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act (1 of 1956)

S.3: Forfeiture of the property in respect of which offence is committed is illegal unless notified order authorises such forfeiture.

Any person contravening any notified order made under section 3 is liable to the prescribed punishment and if notified order so provides, the court may direct that any property in respect of which the court is satisfied that the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Provincial government.

Forfeiture of the subject of the offence is dependent on whether the order provides for such forfei- ture. Where in the notified order there is no provisions for forfeiture of the property any court passing an order of forfeiture of any such property acts illegally. Haripada Datta Vs. The State, (1968) 20 DLR 569

-Under Act I of 1956 no one is authorised to possess more than 20 maunds of food grains except without a licence issued by the proper authority.

S. 6-Where in trying the petitioners under this Act under which the convictions against them were recorded, the law has not been correctly applied by the Special Magistrate, revision in certiorari of the convictions and sentences is clearly necessary.

Faker Ali Vs. State, (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 196. -Writ of certiorari will lie against an illegal order of confiscation made under this section. Faker Ali Vs. State (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 196.

Offences under this section are exclusively triable by a Special Magistrate-A Sub-Divisional Officer who is not appointed a Special Magistrate, cannot, therefore, try an offence under this section. Shah Zillur Rahman Mutawalli Vs. State (1958) 10 DLR 543.

-Relation between the Act and the Order-Conviction under section 6, if valid

The conviction was founded under section 6 of the East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act, 1956 for contravening the provisions of clause 5 of the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order 1948 by a Special Magistrate who was authorised to take cognizance of and try cases under the provisions of E. Pak. Control of Essential Commodities Act. It was contended that there is no nexus between the Act and the Order and therefore the conviction was invalid.

Held: The Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order 1948, was enacted by virtue of the powers conferred under sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Power) Act (24 of 1946) and this Order has been kept alive by subsequent Ordi- nances and enactments.

Therefore, the order of conviction passed in this case is a valid and legal order. Abdur Rashid Bhuiyan Vs. E.A. Hashim (1962) 14 DLR 438: (1962) PLD (Dac) 122".

 -The intention of the Legislature when passing Act I of 1956 was that offences under the Act would be triable by Magistrates appointed under the Criminal Procedure Code with the usual incidence of appeal or revision attached to their judgment and are not triable by a Special Magistrate under Ordinance 15 of 1956 (E. Pak. Special Courts Ordinance) whose judgments are not open to appeal or revision. Rajab Ali Vs. Province of East Pakistan (1958) 10 DLR 385.