Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1203 (PNJ)

Satyadeep Chopra v. State Of Haryana

2008-07-09

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing of the order dated 18.4.2006, Annexure P.3 and order dated 30.5.2007, Annexure P.6 whereby order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure P.2 was set aside. 2. The petitioner as attorney holder of registered owner Smt. Rama Kant Goel moved an application for release of oil tanker bearing registration No. HR-05-A-7764 along with oil on supardari on the ground that he is the attorney of the registered owner of the tanker in question which is involved in case FIR No. 7 dated 10.1.2006 registered under sections 420/467/468/120-B IPC and 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act) by Police Station Sadar, Panipat. 3. Said oil tanker along with oil is said to be lying in open compound of Police Station, Sadar, Panipat since 10.1.2006 i.e. for the last more than one year and is being spoiled due to non-use. It was further claimed that the petitioner is suffering monetary loss due to non-use of the said tanker. The investigation is complete. 4. The application moved by the petitioner on an earlier occasion was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide order dated 14.2.2006 against which revision was filed in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Said revision was accepted and case was remanded back to the learned Magistrate as no reasons were given for the release of the tanker. 5. On remand the application was dismissed by learned Magistrate. The oil in the tanker stands tested by Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh and the following report has been submitted : "The composition of the material in these bottles has not been found to be tallying with the composition of standard high speediest or standard kerosene oil. The material in these bottles is the fuel a mixture of used mobil oil and other hydrocarbons containing dirt and moisture." Learned courts below came to the conclusion that the case property is required to be produced during trial. It was also observed that adulterated oil can be disposed of by specific directions of the court. The tanker with oil could not be released to the petitioner on sapurdari as prayed for. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the present case has been falsely registered as it was nowhere claimed that the tanker had diesel. The tanker with oil could not be released to the petitioner on sapurdari as prayed for. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the present case has been falsely registered as it was nowhere claimed that the tanker had diesel. Rather the bills produced on record which are on the file of the prosecution show that it was used mobile oil to be used for cleaning machinery. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that no proceedings under section 6 of the Act have been launched against the petitioner and the investigation in the present case is complete and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in retaining the tanker and the oil at the police station. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 45 contended that the petitioner is entitled to release of tanker with oil. He even made an offer that he is willing to deposit the price of the oil in terms of Section 6-A of the Act. Paras Nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment in Balwinder Singhs case (supra) (read) as under: "4. Learned Special Court, Ludhiana declined to release the tanker on Superdari in his favour on the ground that the question of release of the tanker on superdari lies within the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 6A of the Act. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Section 6A of the Act of 1955 reads as follows: "6A. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Section 6A of the Act of 1955 reads as follows: "6A. Confiscation of essential commodity - (1) Where any (essential commodity is seized) in pursuance to an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, (a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to) the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such (essential commodity is seized) and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector (may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied) that there has been a contravention of the order) may order confiscation of - (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity : Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oil-seeds in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oil-seeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section : Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle or other conveyance. (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may - (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction : Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public. (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall - (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (i) of the Section 6C so requires, or (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this Section, the person concerned is acquitted be paid to the owner or the person from whom it is seized." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Orissa High Court in the case of Priyabrata Sukla v. State of Orissa, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 803 to contend that the sample of oil can be retained by the prosecution duly authenticated for use and to use the same in evidence in stead of retaining the tanker and the oil. Honble Orissa High Court in the case of Priyabrata Sukla (supra) was pleased to lay down as under : "6. Honble Orissa High Court in the case of Priyabrata Sukla (supra) was pleased to lay down as under : "6. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, in my view, the power under Section 451, Cr.P.C should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously during inquiry or trial keeping in mind various purposes, namely : (1) the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (2) the court or police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; and (3) if proper Zimanama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary evidence should also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail. The same view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in an earlier case in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000)8 JT (SC) 54 and in the case of Dasavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, AIR 1977 SC 1749. 7. Admittedly, the Ambassador car had been allegedly used for the purpose of commission of offence. Whether the offence was committed with the knowledge of the petitioner or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in course or trial of the G.R. Case. But then, the vehicle which has been seized by police is lying in open place at the police station where no one takes care of it. Its condition will deterioration and at the end of the trial if an order relating to release of the vehicle would be passed, the same would not be beneficial to the party. Thus, what is required during pendency of the trial, to make adequate arrangement so as to maintain the seized vehicle in proper condition and ensure its production, if necessary, during the trial as and when required." 9. It is not in dispute that investigation in the case is complete and report of the Chemical Examiner has also been received. The tanker along with oil is lying unused and the value of the same is being depreciated and the income of the petitioner has come to a stand still. 10. It is not in dispute that investigation in the case is complete and report of the Chemical Examiner has also been received. The tanker along with oil is lying unused and the value of the same is being depreciated and the income of the petitioner has come to a stand still. 10. In view of this it is ordered that the tanker along with oil be released in favour of owner/petitioner on supardari on furnishing security equivalent to the price of oil with the tanker to the satisfaction of Special Court. The sapurdar shall undertake to produce the tanker in question on the date or those dates of hearing for which the court gives prior notice to produce it. The petitioner is directed to associate with the prosecution in drawing out the sample of the oil from the tanker which shall be duly sealed and kept by the prosecution for production in court at the time of evidence. The petitioner shall also furnish an affidavit admitting the total contents of oil which are in the tanker the custody of which is being handed over to the petitioner along with tanker. It is made clear that this sample shall be used in evidence if so required by the court. The petition allowed in the above terms.