State of Punjab vs Amrit Lal

K.K Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the respondent.

This petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ludhiana.

According to the case of the prosecution, 3576 litres of high speed diesel and 7563 litres of petrol were recovered from the respondent and a case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 25, dated 9.2.1994 against the respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Upon a petition moved before the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, for release of the aforesaid seized high speed diesel and petrol, the said petition, after hearing both the sides, was allowed and the seized material was ordered to be released to the respondent accused against surety for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate.

The contention of the learned A.A.G. for the revisionistState is that the learned Special Judge was not the requisite authority to deal with the petition moved. Under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the jurisdiction to deal with the matter rests with the Collector of the district and he is the proper authority to consider the matter of release of the essential commodities seized by the police. The impugned order, it has been submitted, suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and is also against the public policy. It has further been contended that only such goods which are subject to natural decay or waste can be ordered to be released. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the revisionist because public at large will suffer an irreparable loss if adulterated high speed diesel or petrol is released.

The learned counsel for the respondentaccused has cited the authority reported in the case of Bhupinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 38 where a learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the view expressed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the criminal Court dealing with the matter had the jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. The learned Single Judge quoted the following paragraph 6 of the judgment in Ramehswar Rathod''s case (supra) :

"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 the 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."

The learned Single Judge took the view that during the pendency of the case, the Criminal Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for return/release of the seized property/commodity. It will, thus, be seen that a Criminal Court does not cease to have jurisdiction in a matter regarding release of the property/commodity during the pendency of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the learned trial Judge had the requisite jurisdiction in law to deal with the matter and dispose of a petition moved for the release of high speed diesel/petrol against an adequate security. That being so, the order passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity or lack of requisite jurisdiction. Resultantly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.