Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1872 (MAD)

K. Gangadaran v. District Collector, Coimbatore

2013-05-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Mini van vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 seized by the 2nd Respondent on 25.04.2013. 2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Mini Pickup van vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334. According to the Petitioner, the said vehicle was hired by one Prakash to load goods on 25.04.2013. It is the case of the Petitioner that while loading the aforesaid goods, the 2nd Respondent who has come on .the way, seized the vehicle and goods, notwithstanding the fact that the documents relating the vehicle have been produced. It appears that a First Information Report No.145/2013 has been registered by the C.B.C.I.D. Police, Pollachi on 25.04.2013 against A.1 to A.3, in respect of alleged offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. It comes to be known that after seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner made a written representation to the 2nd Respondent on 2.5.2013 requesting for the release of vehicle in issue. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that recently the Government of Tamilnadu Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department has issued instructions vide G.O. Letter No.20669/G1/96/1, dated 12.07.1996 in directing the District Collectors to release the vehicle seized under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act within two days of written representation made by the concerned authorities. However, no orders have been passed by the authorities concerned, based on the representation made by the Petitioner dated 2.5.2013. 5. It is to be pointed out that vehicle is meant for user and the owner ought not to be deprived of such user. If the vehicle is not put into use it is likely to rot and rust. Merely because, a property/vehicle is liable to be confiscated, it should not be released pending adjudicatory process is not a reasonable or justifiable ground for refusing the interim custody of the vehicle seized. 6. If the vehicle is not put into use it is likely to rot and rust. Merely because, a property/vehicle is liable to be confiscated, it should not be released pending adjudicatory process is not a reasonable or justifiable ground for refusing the interim custody of the vehicle seized. 6. At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala V. State of West Bengal and another, 1990 (Vol-34) M.L.J. (Criminal) at page 545, wherein it is held as follows: "Sec.6-A empowers confiscation of the seized essential commodity, the package, covering and receptacle in which the essential commodity was found and the animal, vehicle or other conveyance in which such essential commodity was carried. The words 'may order confiscation' convey that the power is discretionary and not obligatory. Subsection (2) thereof confers a special power to deal with any essential commodity which, in the opinion of the Collector is subject to speedy and natural delay or it is otherwise expedient in public interest to be disposed of in the manner indicated therein. Sec.6-A, therefore, merely confers power of confiscation and not the power of release, disposal, distribution etc., except to the limited extent permitted by Sub-sec.(2) thereof." Further, in the aforesaid decision, it is held as under: "The word 'release' is preceded by the words 'possession, delivery and disposal' and followed by the word 'distribution'. The setting and context in which the word 'release' is used makes it clear that it is not used in the sense of 'return'. In the first place it would completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act if the essential commodity seized for suspected contravention of the order made under Sec.3 is returned to the owner or person from whom it was seized even before the confiscation proceedings were completed. Such an intention cannot be inscribed to the Legislature. Secondly, it is not possible to believe that the legislature would confer unqualified and unrestricted power to return the essential commodity to the owner or the person from whose possession it was seized before a decision whether or not to confiscate the same is taken. Such an intention cannot be inscribed to the Legislature. Secondly, it is not possible to believe that the legislature would confer unqualified and unrestricted power to return the essential commodity to the owner or the person from whose possession it was seized before a decision whether or not to confiscate the same is taken. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the object and purpose of the statute, and the mischief it seeks to guard against, the word 'release' is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc., so that the same become available to the consumer public." 7. Also, it is aptly pointed out by this Court that in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, City South, Chennai and another V. S.Damodaran, (2007) 3 MLJ 196 and 197, it is laid down as follows: "When any commodity/vehicle/animal is seized or confiscated and the owner thereof intends to get an order of release of such commodity/vehicle/animal, he/ she should first avail of the alternative remedy available before the Competent Authority. Only when the Competent Authority fails to discharge its duty, may the aggrieved person move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief". 8. In the instant case, the Petitioner is said to have submitted his representation dated 02.05.2013 addressed to the 2nd Respondent praying for handing over of the Pick up Mini Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 in question. 9. One cannot ignore an important fact that a Judicial Magistrate can pass an order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. only after physical or symbolical production of seized material before the Court and that too only after hearing both sides. It cannot be gainsaid that such an order is final as between the parties. A party affected by such an order is entitled to file a Revision before the Competent Forum. For disposal of property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the property should be in the control of Magistrate. The orders to be passed by the Competent Judicial Magistrate are under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., which are during the pendency of trial or enquiry. 10. For disposal of property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the property should be in the control of Magistrate. The orders to be passed by the Competent Judicial Magistrate are under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., which are during the pendency of trial or enquiry. 10. Be that as it may and taking note of the fact that the seized vehicle cannot be kept either in the Police Station or within a precincts of R.D.O.'s Office etc., and also bearing in mind an important fact that such keeping of seized vehicle for a long time will be detriment to the interest of the Petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice, directs the 1st Respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Mini Pick up Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334, subject to the Petitioner fulfilling the following conditions:- (a) The Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in cash before the 1st Respondent; (b) The Petitioner is directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle; (c) The Petitioner is to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will cause production of the vehicle in question before the competent/ concerned Respondents (as the case may be) as an when called for and further, he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the appropriate proceedings initiated are completed; (d) On compliance of the above conditions, the 1st Respondent is directed to release the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 9 AD 3334 to the Petitioner (if he is in custody and possession), within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (e) The 1st Respondent is directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings within a period of 45 days; (f) This order for the release of the vehicle can be pressed into service by the Petitioner only if the vehicle is not in the custody of the criminal Court. If the vehicle is in the custody of concerned Criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction, then, option is given to the Petitioner to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate to get release of the vehicle, by filing necessary Application in the manner known to law and in accordance with law; and (g) Inasmuch as the vehicle Ashok Leyland Mini Pick up Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 is seized by the 2nd Respondent on 25.4.2013, the above order is to be complied with, within three days, if no order of adjudication is passed or confiscation is passed as on today. 11. In the result, with the above said directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.