Bhupinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a revision petition filed by Bhupinder Kumar (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Ludhiana, dated 8.2.1995. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for release of the Tanker to him on furnishing of security.

The relevant facts are that on basis of secret information, Officerin Charge, Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana intercepted the Tanker in question. 6000 litres of kerosene oil was recovered, Krishan Lal and Joginder Singh were the occupants of the Tanker, Representative samples were drawn from the liquid contents and other proceedings were conducted. The Tanker as such was taken into possession.

Present petitioner. Bhupinder Kumar, filed an application asserting that he is the owner of the Tanker. The same is lying at the Police Station and the Tanker may be damaged while at the Police Station. He prayed that during the pendency of the case, Tanker No. PBD5279 be released to the petitioner on Superdari.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide the impugned order concluded that report of the chemical analyst is still awaited. He also noted the fact that matter regarding reporting of the seizure to the Collector for confiscation is under active consideration. Consequently the petition as such was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

The scope of Section 6A as amended of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849. In the cited case, the truck was seized for alleged contravention of provisions of Essential Commodities Act. An application was filed by owner of the Truck in the Madhya Pradesh High Court to quash the order of Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, whereby request for return of the vehicle on furnishing of security had been rejected. It had further been prayed that order of District Collector to restrain him from proceeding under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act be also quashed, The question that came up for consideration was as to whether the Criminal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for return of the vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. In paragraph 6, the Supreme Court returned the following findings:

"We are, however, unable to accept this contention because normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary criminal court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new Act. In view of the language used and in the context in which this language has been used, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Criminal Court retained the jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High Court was therefore right in passing the order under consideration and in the facts and circumstances of the case to return the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing the security."

In other words, the Supreme Court held that during the pendency of the case, the Criminal Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

In fact, while the learned Additional Sessions Judge was informed that matter is under consideration for being submitted to the Collector under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, but during the course of arguments, it was pointed out that the same has still not been sent to the Collector. There is an inordinate delay. The vehicle, as such, cannot be allowed to lie idle so that it may be damaged or may become useless. Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act contemplates that report of such seizure shall without unreasonable delay be made to the Collector. In fact there is total noncompliance of the said provisions. This is further the factor which prompted this Court to entertain the application.

No useful purpose would be served by allowing the Tanker to remain idle and therefore, it is a fit case where it should be released to the petitioner on his furnishing adequate security.

For these reasons I accepted these revision and set aside the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is directed that the Tanker in question be released to the petitioner on his furnishing a security to the sum of Rs. 2 lacs (Rupees two lacs) with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and an undertaking that the Tanker shall be produced during course of trial as and when required by the trial court.