State of Rajasthan vs Naresh Kumar

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. by State of Rajasthan, the State Government is challenging the validity of order dated 5.10.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No. 69/09, whereby, learned Sessions Judge allowed revision petition filed by Respondent and released truck No. GJ-12-T/9829 on supardginama.

Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle in question was seized in connection with criminal case No. 166/09 registered against the Respondent u/s 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, according to which, 200 bags of wheat, said to be sent by the RFC to the fair price shops; but, in between that, the wheat bags of Government supply were not taken to the fair price shops and at the time of inspection, it is found that the said wheat was going to be sold in open market.

The vehicle in question was seized under the Essential Commodities Act, and thereafter, as per provision of Section 6A, the Collector is authorised for passing order for confiscation. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G.R. Pooniya vehemently argued that upon application filed by the Respondent for releasing the said vehicle the District Collector rejected the said application on the ground that investigation is going on. The District Collector passed order on 15.9.2009 and refused to release the said vehicle. However, no order was passed for confiscation u/s 6A.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the order passed by the District Collector was further challenged by way of filling revision petition u/s 397, read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge, Sirohi. Learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi allowed the said application for releasing the vehicle in question and while setting aside the order passed by the District Collector passed order to release the vehicle in question is favour of the Respondent. According to the State, there is no jurisdiction left with the Sessions Judge to entertain such revision petition because there is complete bar imposed u/s 6E of the Essential Commodities Act for entertaining any application for releasing any goods or vehicle during the pendency of confiscation proceedings u/s 6A, but learned Sessions Judge has illegally entertained and passed order for quashing the order passed by the District Collector dated 15.9.2009 which is in contravention of Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, therefore, order impugned may be quashed.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that no order has been passed by the District Collector u/s 6A and there is power left with the Sessions Judge in accordance with Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure. to entertain revision petition against order of the District Collector because the District Collector has acted illegally and not passed order u/s 6A, for which, he is under obligation to do so. Therefore it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge, Sirohi has exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the revision petition filed by the Respondent and to pass order for releasing the vehicle in question, therefore, this petition filed by the State may be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.

It is admitted position of the case that after seizure of the vehicle under the Essential Commodities Act, it is the duty of the Collector for passing order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties for confiscation u/s 6A, in which, there is power left with the Collector for confiscation of the commodities; but, no order has been passed till today. It is also admitted position of the case that as per Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act there is bar of jurisdiction in certain cases. Section 6E reads as follows:

6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases--

Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made u/s 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation u/s 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned u/s 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such, essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

After perusing the pleadings of this case and provision contained in Section 6E of the Act of 1955, while considering the fact that till today no order u/s 6A of the Act for confiscation has been passed by the District Collector, in my opinion, there was no jurisdiction left with the Sessions Judge, Sirohi to entertain the revision against the order of the District Collector, in which, District Collector, Sirohi passed order while refusing to release the vehicle in question. The remedy is available to the aggrieved party by way of appeal u/s 6C in the event of passing u/s 6A, but in this case, till today, the District Collector has passed no order u/s 6A, therefore, there was no occasion for the Sessions Judge to entertain the revision petition against the interlocutory order passed by the District Collector dated 15.9.2009. In my considered opinion, learned Sessions Judge has wrongly exercised jurisdiction while entertaining the revision petition filed u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the fact that as per Section 6E of the Act there is complete bar imposed by the Legislature to entertain any application for releasing the vehicle.

In this view of the matter, it is held that learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi has wrongly entertained the revision petition filed u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Respondent because specific provision is made by the Legislature u/s 6E whereby complete bar is imposed to exercise such jurisdiction.

As a result, this petition filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. Order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 5.10.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside.

However, District Collector, Sirohi is directed to pass order u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act after providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of one month from today. Respondent is directed to appear before the District Collector on 7.3.2011 and raise his all grounds for releasing his vehicle in question. Further it is made clear that if the vehicle in question has been released in pursuance of order passed by the Sessions Judge, then, it will remain with the Respondent till disposal of Section 6A proceedings by the District Collector. The Respondent will be at liberty to challenge order passed by the District Collector u/s 6A if the same is passed against the Respondent.