Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3365 (ALL)

RAMA SHANKAR YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-10-28

VIRENDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Virendra Singh, J.—Applicant Sri Rama Shankar Yadav filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for this relief that the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by Special Judge (EC Act), Jalaun at Orai in case Crime No. 329 of 2009, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act and under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Ait, District Jalaun in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55 of 2009, State v. Rama Shankar Yadav, be quashed and Truck No. U.P. 62 J-5396 be released in favour of the applicant. 2. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned lower Court has wrongly rejected the application of the applicant for releasing the truck No. U.P. 620 J-5396 as per impugned order because as per F.I.R. of the case 327 bags wheat containing 50 Kg per bag is alleged to have been seized loaded in the alleged truck on 21.4.2009 while Ajai Kumar Gupta a farmer, whose wheat was carried in the truck, has already been enlarged on bail in the case. The applicant is the owner/driver of the truck. The wheat is not scheduled commodity and it is open to sale in the open market and there is no ban for selling and purchasing the wheat. The lower Court has wrongly held that the proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act is pending before the District Magistrate while there is no such proceeding is pending before the District Magistrate is revealed in the inquiry made from the office of the District Magistrate in this regard. A photo copy of the questionnaire dated 9.7.2009 in this regard is filed. The vehicle of the applicant is lying in the police station since 21.4.2009 and great loss is continuously occurred to the applicant. There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the truck and the applicant is entitled for release of the alleged truck. 4. Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no error either of law or on the facts of this case in the impugned order and the learned lower Court has rightly rejected the release application of the truck thereby finding correctly that that truck is liable to be confiscated as the proceedings in this regard as per provisions under Section 6-A is pending before the District Magistrate. 5. 5. In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. The learned counsel for the applicant took recourse of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(46) ACC 223 (SC) and in the case of Virendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (60) ACC 481. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law regarding the disposal of property as per provisions under Section 451 Cr.P.C. thereby stating that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. The seized article should be handed over to its owner for which the Court may follow the procedure regarding the evidence required for the purpose, bonds and sureties should be taken in this regard. The Photos of such articles should be attested and countersigned by the owner of the goods and the accused and the person to whom custody may be given. The Court can impose any other appropriate condition too in this regard. Regarding the seized vehicle, the appropriate order should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period is not useful. It can be given by taking bond, guarantee and security. This Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh (supra) has also held that the criminal Courts have jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate order with regard to the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. Even if the provisions of Section 6-A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been attracted in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathore, 1990(27) ACC 480 (SC), has also held thereby repelling the contentions that in view of the provisions of Section 6-A and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Criminal Court had no jurisdiction, that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted in such matter. Therefore, I come to this conclusion regarding the facts of this case that the lower Court took an erroneous view that the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is ousted in the case where the proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act is said to have been pending before the Magistrate. Therefore, I come to this conclusion regarding the facts of this case that the lower Court took an erroneous view that the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is ousted in the case where the proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act is said to have been pending before the Magistrate. Without entering into the merit of this fact as to whether the proceeding under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act is pending in the Court of District Magistrate or not as is denied by the applicant or whether the Truck is liable to be confiscated or not. I am of this view that even if it is presumed that proceedings are pending, the release of the vehicle should not be ignored in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find it expedient that this application be allowed and is hereby allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 2.7.2009 is hereby set aside. The learned lower Court is hereby directed to release the vehicle in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC), thereby invoking the jurisdiction vested in the Court concerned accordingly, in this case too. ————