Parsadilal Rathore vs State of M.P.

G.D. Saxena, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been submitted for exercising the inherent powers by this court with a prayer to set aside the order of the trial Judge dated 27th March 2012 in relation to Crime No. 20/12, registered by Police Station Survaya which was confirmed on revision bearing No. 49/12, vide order dated 12th April 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge Shivpuri (M.P.), refusing to issue directions for releasing the seized vehicle (Truck No. MP 07 G 4366), owned by the petitioner, on interim supurdginama, till finality of the confiscation proceedings pending before the competent authority. The facts, in short, just for the decision of the IInd petition are that on March 2012, 180 bags (near about 80 Qu.) of wheat belonging to the Public Distribution System were found to have been illegally transported in the offending vehicle for sale in the open market. On information, the truck with goods was intercepted and was seized by the Assistant Supply Officer Shivpuri. After requisite inquiry, the FIR was lodged in the Police Station Survaya. Investigation was put in motion. After seizure was effected, the confiscation proceedings were instituted before the Collector. The petitioner had applied for delivery of the seized truck u/s 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC Shivpuri, but his application was rejected. On revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the said order was affirmed, hence, this petition.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of the trial Judge as well as the revisional court are not in consonance with the provisions of law. It is contended that the learned two courts-below committed grave error in not releasing the seized truck under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act on the ground that the seized vehicle is subject to the confiscation proceedings which are pending before the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the learned Sessions court had the authority under the law to grant the interim relief including the interim delivery on supurdginama till finality of the confiscation proceedings before the court of law.. It is stated that the petitioner is the legal and registered owner of the seized vehicle, who is also ready to comply with all the conditions as may be imposed by the court. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the petition appropriate directions may be issued to the competent court/authority to release the vehicle in question subject to furnishing supurdginama in accordance with the terms of the order of this court.

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the petition of the petitioner for delivery of the seized vehicle used for the purpose of transportation and selling of the wheat belonging to Public Distribution System in the open market. It is, thus, submitted that the orders passed by the courts-below being according to the law, deserve to be upheld. Therefore, it is prayed that by confirming the aforesaid orders passed by the two courts below, the petition may be dismissed.

The only question required to be determined in this case is whether the impugned order dated 12/4/12 requires any interference under the revisional jurisdiction?

It is not in dispute that the competent authority is invested with power to seize and confiscate essential commodity, u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''). Any animal, vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity could also be seized under sub-clause (c) of Section 6A, which reads as follows:

6-A. Confiscation of essential commodity.

(1) Where any [essential commodity is seized] in pursuance of an order made u/s 3 in relation thereto, [a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such [essential commodity is seized] and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, 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--

(a) ***

(b) ***

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:]

Under Section 6B, the competent authority is bound to issue show cause notice to the owner of such commodity, package or vehicle before confiscation. A remedy by way of appeal is prescribed u/s 6C, as quoted hereunder:

6-C. Appeal. -(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation u/s 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to [the State Government concerned and the State Government] shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.

Section 6E bar jurisdiction of courts in certain cases, but that do not take away the power of the High Court under inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, it is evident that the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an order to release the commodity or the seized vehicle u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

In the case of G. Subbarama Naidu Vs. The Joint Collector, Chittoor Dist. and Others, , the Division Bench has observed:-

We gain support for our view from the proviso to S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, which reads as under:

Provided further that in the case of any vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

This proviso makes it abundantly clear that the Legislature in its wisdom felt that the vehicle need not be confiscated even if it is involved in a series of offences and it should be released if the owner is prepared to pay fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodities.

Further, in Mewa lal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. through Police Station Mihona District Bhind 2011 (2) EFR 574 this court held:-

"While considering the facts that applicant is registered owner of the seized vehicle no prolific purpose would be served by letting the vehicle idle in the police station for such long period. In view of the aforesaid. The impugned order is having apparent perverse and as such it requires interference in this revision hence impugned order dated 06th August 2010 is set aside with direction to the trial court that tractor trolley bearing No. MP 06 A 7066 be released on interim Supurdginama of applicant on his furnishing surety bond and personal bond of Rs. One Lakh with the condition that during investigation whenever required applicant will produce that vehicle and shall not alienate, dispose of or transfer that vehicle and also produce it before the collector if confiscation proceedings are initiated concerning that vehicle and the aforesaid release of the vehicle will be subject to outcome of confiscation proceedings if initiated.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rameshwar Rathore (1990 AIR SC 1849 : 1990 Cr. L. J. 1756.) the Apex court held:-

It was next contended by the respondent before the High Court that the Criminal Court was empowered under S.7 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle after due and proper inquiry and therefore the proceedings by the District Collector under S.6A and S.6B of the Act should be quashed. Reliance was placed on several decisions and authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of The State Vs. Abdul Rasheed, ; Sri Bharat Mahey v. State of U.P., 1975 Cri LJ 890 (All) as well as the decision of the learned single Judge in State of M.P. v. Basant Kumar, 1972 Jab LJ SNN. 99. On a consideration of the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the conclusion that the criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in view of the enactment of the provisions of S.6A as well as S.7 of the Act, it cannot be held that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the enactment of these provisions, it would be useless to hold that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting S.6A read with S.7 would be defeated. 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 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.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand, submitted that there being an alternative remedy of appeal, generally High Court should not entertain a petition. Controverting his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the alternative remedy is not efficacious and the petitions for releasing the vehicle are not disposed of in time by the competent authority and, therefore, the interference by this court in such matters are sought.

Whenever petition is received from the owners of the vehicles requesting release, normally orders are passed within a reasonable time for the release of the vehicle after collecting security as provided in the rules, pending enquiry u/s 6A of the EC Act, 1955 by the competent authority. But in certain cases the owners of the vehicle approach the High Court without either presenting an application to the appropriate forum requesting the release of the vehicle, or concealing the fact of pendency of enquiry of the case before the authority u/s 6A of the EC Act and obtain release order from the High Court.

From the aforesaid, it will be evident that there is not only an alternative remedy available, but such remedy is also efficacious. In fact, orders are passed in many cases by the appellate authority to release the vehicle on certain conditions.

In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, observes as follows:

a) The petitioner shall first avail the alternative remedy before the competent authority for release of his vehicle for the grounds and reasons as may be taken by the aggrieved person;

b) In case such application for release of the vehicle is filed, the competent authority/appellate authority will dispose of the application immediately, preferably within a period of one month from the date of this order and release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on supurdginama, after collecting security as provided in the rules, pending enquiry u/s 6A of the EC Act, 1955, which would not be exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the vehicle.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.