Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1502 (RAJ)

Naresh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 1.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Bhilwara in Case No.3/2013 arising out of FIR No.319/2013 registered at the Police Station Gangapur, District Bhilwara for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act whereby the application filed by the petitioner being the power of attorney of the registered owner Raju under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing his vehicle No.RJ06.GA.7528 on Supardaginama was rejected. 2. Facts in brief are that the Tehsildar Sahada received a complaint regarding alleged misuse of food-grains issued under the public distribution scheme. A Mahindra Pickup No.RJ06.GA.7528 owned by Shri Raju was stopped and on its search being taken, 18 gunny bags containing 50 Kgs. wheat meant for distribution under the P.D.S. Scheme found therein. The gunny bags were bearing the seal of the Food Corporation of India. The vehicle as well as the bags of wheat were taken into custody by the Tehsildar. 3. On the basis of the search proceedings, an FIR No.319/2013 was registered by the Tehsildar at the Police Station Gangapur against Udai Lal Vyas, the Manager of the Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, Nandasa and the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The Enforcement Inspector moved an application under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act before the learned District Collector, Bhilwara for confiscation of the seized jeep and wheat. 5. The petitioner being the power of attorney holder of the registered owner of the pick up vehicle filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle as well as the wheat on interim supardaginama. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional District Collector, Bhilwara by order dated 1.1.2014. Hence, this misc. petition. 6. The petitioner, power of attorney holder present in person submitted that the FIR in question was registered without any basis. He as well as the co-accused Udai Lal have challenged the validity of the FIR by filing two separate Misc. Petitions No.182/2014 and 33/2014 before this Court. He submitted that if the vehicle is kept lying idle in an open condition, it will rot and be rendered waste. He therefore, prayed that pending the disposal of the confiscation proceedings and the conclusion of the trial, the vehicle be directed to be released on Supardaginama. 7. Petitions No.182/2014 and 33/2014 before this Court. He submitted that if the vehicle is kept lying idle in an open condition, it will rot and be rendered waste. He therefore, prayed that pending the disposal of the confiscation proceedings and the conclusion of the trial, the vehicle be directed to be released on Supardaginama. 7. The learned ADP opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced and perused the order impugned and the material available on record. 9. The investigation of the FIR registered against the petitioner and the co-accused is still pending. The conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take a long time. The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Keeping the vehicle lying in an idle condition in the custody of the Enforcement Department/Police is likely to render it into a total waste. Thus, taking cue from the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 Cr.L.R. (SC) 103 this Court is of the opinion that the seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner on supardaginama. 10. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed. It is directed that pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, the Mahindra Pickup No.RJ06.GA.7528 shall be released to the petitioner on interim custody upon his furnishing a Supardaginama in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs and a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Collector, Bhilwara.Petition allowed. *******