Allahabad High Court
Mahant Shri Shri 108 Swami Prakashanand ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 16 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11817 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mahant Shri Shri 108 Swami Prakashanand Ji Maharaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Kumar Singh Ii Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in Case Crime No. 405 of 2007, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Awagarh, District Etah, and the order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah, in Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2009 (Annexure nos. 7 and 9, respectively, to the writ petition).
It appears from the record that essential commodity was seized in Case Crime No. 405 of 2007, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Awagarh, District Etah,, for the release of which an application was moved by the petitioner, which was rejected. Thereafter a revision was filed against the rejection order and that revision was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner approached the High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15405 of 2009. In this petition the High Court on 3.8.2009 directed that in case the petitioner moves a fresh application before the Magistrate within fifteen days from the date of the order i.e. 3.8.2009 subject to deposit of adequate security other than cash or bank guarantee, the court below shall decide the said application in accordance with law. This order indicates that a fresh application for release was allowed to be moved by the petitioner if he fulfills the conditions imposed by the High Court.
Heard Mr. A. K. Singh II, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Singh that in the light of the order passed by the High Court on 3.8.2009 the essential commodity should have been released in favour of the petitioner.
I am unable to accept this contention. It is nowhere provided in the order of the High Court dated 3.8.2009 that the property shall be released if the conditions imposed by the High Court were fulfilled. The High court only said in the order dated 3.8.2009 that in case the petitioner moves an application for release of the property, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned Court in accordance with law. In compliance of the order dated 3.8.2009 the Magistrate again considered the matter and rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act had been initiated.
I feel that the order of the Magistrate cannot be set aside on the ground that the High Court had directed for the release of the property. The property should be released or not was left at the discretion of the Magistrate and the Magistrate after exercising his discretion in accordance with law rejected the application.
It transpires from the record that the proceedings u/s 6A of the Essential Commodities Act are on. There is no bar that for the release of the property a request cannot be made by the petitioner before the authority, which is initiating the proceedings u/s 6A of the E. C. Act. Therefore, this option being available to the petitioner, he may exercise that option and that option being available to the petitioner there is no justification to give indulgence in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case an application for release is made by the petitioner before confiscation, the authority concerned shall decide first the application of the petitioner and thereafter the proceedings u/s 6A of the E.C. Act shall be concluded.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010 Pcl