Rasik vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2009
It was next contended by the respondent before
the High Court that the criminal court was empowered
under Section 7 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle
after due and proper inquiry and therefore the
proceedings by the District Collector under Section
6A and Section 6B of the Act should be quashed.
Reliance was placed on several decisions and
authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision
of the Mysore High Court in the case of State Vs.
Abdul Rasheed, Bharat Mahey Vs. State of U.P. as
well as the decision of the learned Single Judge in
State of M.P. Vs. Basant Kumar. On a consideration of
the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the
conclusion that the criminal court had jurisdiction to
deal with the matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue
that in view of the enactment of the provisions of
Crl. M.C. No. 2433/2009
4
Section 6A as well as Section 7 of the Act, it cannot be
held that the criminal court continued to retain
jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the
enactment of these provisions, it would be useless to
hold that the criminal court continued to retain
jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting
Section 6A read with Section 7 would be defeated.
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 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
jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the
jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High Court
Crl. M.C. No. 2433/2009
5
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.