Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siddharaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore
BEFORE SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12401 of 2022
Between:-
SIDDHARAJ S/O BHARATSINGH RANA , AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
80, FORT ROAD, 3-266, SARWANTI SOCIETY,
VADWAN CITY, SURENDRA NAGAR (GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT
1.
MAGISTRATE DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR. P.S. SARDARPUR P.S.
2.
SARDARPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Indore, dated 31.03.2022
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent / State.
Heard.
ORDER
The applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First -2- Class in Crime No.41/2022, whereby the applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. have been rejected. The application is also against the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur in Criminal Revision No.2/2022.
As per prosecution story, acting on discrete information on 25.01.2022, the Police inspected the Dhaba situated on Indore - Ahmedabad Raod and found that four people namely Pushpendra, Pahalwan, Ganesh and Mahendra were taking out the gas from a tanker and filling up the gas cylinders, therefore, police arrested the accused persons and registered Crime No.41/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The police seized the aforesaid two gas tankers bearing registration No.GJ 12 BV 0084 and GJ 01 DZ 0393 from Pushpendra and Pahalwan (driver). Thereafter, the applicant moved application under Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., however, the same was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2022 on the ground that the police has referred the matter to the Collector, Dhar for confiscation of vehicles.
The applicant filed an application under Section 451-457 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate for release of seized vehicle on Supurdginama but vide order dated 29.01.2022, the Maigstrate has dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.2/2022. Vide order dated 17.02.2022, the First Additional Sessions Judge -3- has dismissed the revision. Hence, the present application is before this Court.
In the present case, the issue is whether the Magistrate is having jurisdiction to pass a release order of seized vehicle by exercising power under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. or the Collector is competent to pass an order under Section 6-A to C of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Section 6-A deals with confiscation of essential commodities and according to which where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, if he satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of the seized commodity, therefore, as per sub-section 1 of Section 6-A, the information should be sent to the Collector without any unreasonable delay. After receipt of such information, no order shall be passed for confiscation under Section 6-A unless the owner of such commodity is given a notice under Section 6-B. Section 6-C provides a remedy of appeal against the order of confiscation passed under Section 6-A. Section 6-C puts a bar of jurisdiction of the Court in certain cases and according to which any essential commodity seized in pursuance to the order 3 and the confiscation porceedings -4- is pending under Section 6-A before the Collector, any Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, therefore, Section 6-C puts a bar for the Court, Tribunal or authority to pass any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal release or distribution, if confiscation proceedings are pending under Section 6-A before the Collector.
In the present case, the vehicle belonging to the applicant was seized on 25.01.2022 and he filed the application on 27.01.2022 which was dismissed on 29.01.2022. At that relevant point of time, no proceedings were initiated by the Collector for confiscation under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act. On 27.01.2022, the SHO has requested the Collector to initiate the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
Learned Government Advocate despite direction has failed to produce any documents as to when the Collector has initiated the proceedings of confiscation but the fact is clear that on 27.01.2022 when the application was filed, no proceedings were pending before the Collector, therefore, on the said date the Magistrate was having jurisdiction to consider and decide the application. The Magistrate has rejected the application only because a letter has been sent to the Collector for initiation of confiscation proceedings.
In view of above, the impugned orders dated 29.01.2022 and 17.02.2022 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to -5- the Magistrate to decide it afresh.
M.Cr.C. stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2022.04.02 13:01:16 +05'30'