Karnataka High Court
Shakeel vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577
CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201045 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHAKEL @ SHAKEEL S/O MOINUDDIN LOKAPALLI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LORRY OWNER,
R/O H.NO.276, SHASTRI NAGAR,
OPP: NADAF GADIWALE, GURUNANAK NAGAR,
SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA,
NOW RESIDING AT MSK MILL,
JEELANABAD, KALABURAGI-585103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THE STATE THROUGH
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI NELOGI POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH BY ADDL. S.P.P.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS (NEW), UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD),
PRAYING TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE RECORDS IN CRIME
NO.74/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577
CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI, ORDER DATED 4TH JANUARY 2024 IN CRL.R.P.
NO.118/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 26-10-2023 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., AT JEWARGI AND BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER SEIZED VEHICLE BEARING NO. MH-13-CU-8043
IN CRIME NO.74/2023 OF NELOGI POLICE STATION, PENDING
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT JEWARGI, IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is assailing the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below declining to entertain an application filed by the petitioner seeking release of seized vehicle bearing No.MH-13-CU-8043 in Crime No.74/2023, for the offences punishable under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the correctness of both the impugned orders, has placed strong reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench. He submits that the issue involved in the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR present case already stands conclusively settled by the said decision. Referring to the judgment in Criminal Petition No.4492/2022, he contends that the Co-ordinate Bench, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has categorically held that even when a vehicle is seized under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts to consider an application seeking release of the seized vehicle is not completely ousted. Therefore, he argues that the Courts below erred in declining to entertain the petitioner's application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act imposes an express bar on the jurisdiction of criminal courts in respect of any property seized under the Act. It is therefore contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking release of a vehicle seized for offences under the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR Essential Commodities Act, and both the Courts below have rightly applied Section 6E while rejecting the application. Hence, according to the prosecution, the impugned orders are legal, proper, and do not warrant interference.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.74/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Sections 420, 465, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The short question that arises for consideration is whether an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable before the jurisdictional Magistrate in a matter of this nature. This very issue has been considered by a Co- ordinate Bench while examining whether the bar under Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act operates as a complete ouster of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking release of a seized vehicle. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Criminal Petition No.100628/2022, which reads as follows:
"5. It is not disputed that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized when the rice meant for public distribution was being transported unauthorisedly which is in contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.137/2018 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Rameshwar Rathod reported in AIR 1990 SC 1849, has held that the criminal Court having jurisdiction can exercise the power for release of the vehicle which was involved in commission of the offence under the provisions of the Act. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be set aside."
5. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.671/2010, which read as under:
"4. The ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute. The only ground urged by the State is that the vehicle seized under the provisions of Essential -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR Commodities Act is to be released only by the District Commissioner who is authorized officer and not the jurisdictional Magistrate. This issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in AIR 1990 SC 1849, wherein, it is held as under:-
"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 view of the language used in Ss.6A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in the context in which this language has been used, the inference that arises is that the criminal Court retains jurisdiction and its jurisdiction is not completely ousted"
5. Both the Courts below by following the law declared by the Apex Court have passed the impugned orders. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed."
6. In light of the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench, which squarely addresses the very issue involved in the present petition, this Court finds no reason -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR to take a divergent view. The Co-ordinate Bench has categorically held that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not ousted merely because Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act contains a bar. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below run contrary to the settled position of law laid down in an identical factual situation by the Co-ordinate Bench. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Revision No.118/2023, affirming the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR the Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewargi in Crime No.74/2023, is set aside.
(iii) The application filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed, and the vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-13-CU-8043 is ordered to be released to the petitioner on interim custody, subject to the following conditions:
(a). The petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), being the value estimated under the PF, and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(b) The petitioner shall not alter the colour or the registration number of the vehicle.
(c) The petitioner shall produce colour photographs of the vehicle taken from -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7577 CRL.P No. 201045 of 2025 HC-KAR multiple angles before the concerned JMFC Court.
(d) The petitioner shall not transfer, alienate, or create any encumbrance over the vehicle in any manner till the conclusion of the proceedings.
(e) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the confiscation authority or before the JMFC Court, as and when directed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RSP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT:SI