Rama Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh, J.—Applicant Sri. Rama Shankar Yadav filed this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for this relief that the order dated 2.7.2009, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Case Crime No. 329 of 2009, u/s 3/7, E.C. Act and u/s 420, I.P.C., Police Station Ait, district Jalaun in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55 of 2009, State v. Rama Shankar Yadav, be quashed and Truck No. U.P. 62 J-5396 be released in favour of the applicant.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the learned lower court has wrongly rejected the application of the applicant for releasing the truck No. U.P. 620 J-5396 as per impugned order because as per F.I.R. of the case 327 bags wheat containing 50 kg. per bag is alleged to have been seized loaded in the alleged truck on 21.4.2009 while Ajai Kumar Gupta a farmer, whose wheat was carried in the truck, has already been enlarged on bail in the case. The applicant is the owner/driver of the truck. The wheat is not a scheduled commodity and it is open to sale in the open market and there is no ban for selling and purchasing the wheat. The lower court has wrongly held that the proceedings u/s 6A of E.C. Act is pending before the District Magistrate while there is no such proceeding pending before the District Magistrate as revealed in the inquiry made from the office of the District Magistrate in this regard. A photo copy of the questionnaire dated 9.7.2009 in this regard is filed. The vehicle of the applicant is lying in the police station since 21.4.2009 and great loss is continuously occurred to the applicant. There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the truck and the applicant is entitled for release of the alleged truck.

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no error either of law or on the facts of this case in the impugned order and the learned lower court has rightly rejected the release application of the truck thereby finding correctly that that truck is liable to be confiscated as the proceedings in this regard as per provisions u/s 6A is pending before the District Magistrate.

In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. The learned Counsel for the applicant took recourse of the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (XLVI)2003 ACC 223 (SC) and in the case of Virendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (LX)2008 ACC 481 : 2008 (2) ACR 1444. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the law regarding the disposal of property as per provisions u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure thereby stating that the power u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. The seized article should be handed over to its owner for which the Court may follow the procedure regarding the evidence required for the purpose, bonds and sureties should be taken in this regard. The photos of such articles should be attested and countersigned by the owner of the goods and the accused and the person to whom custody may be given. The Court can impose any other appropriate condition too in this regard. Regarding the seized vehicle, the appropriate order should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period is not useful. It can be given by taking bond, guarantee and security. This Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh (supra) has also held that the criminal courts have jurisdiction u/s 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate order with regard to the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. Even if the provisions of Section 6A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been attracted in the case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Rameshwar Rathore (XXVII)1990 ACC 480 (SC), has also held thereby repelling the contentions that in view of the provisions of Section 6A and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction, that the criminal court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted in such matter. Therefore, I come to this conclusion regarding the facts of this case that the lower court took an erroneous view that the jurisdiction of criminal court is ousted in the case where the proceedings u/s 6A of Essential Commodities Act is said to have been pending before the Magistrate. Without entering into the merit of this fact as to whether the proceeding u/s 6A of Essential Commodities Act, is pending in the court of District Magistrate or not as is denied by the applicant or whether the Truck is liable to be confiscated or not. I am of this view that even if it is presumed that proceedings are pending, the release of the vehicle should not be ignored in the light of the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find it expedient that this revision be allowed and is hereby allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 2.7.2009 is hereby set aside. The learned lower court is hereby directed to release the vehicle in the light of the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambal Desai v. State of Gujarat (XLVI)2003 ACC 223 thereby invoking the jurisdiction vested in the Court concerned accordingly, in this case too.