Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 571 (ALL)

ARUN KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-17

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.—The revisionist Arun Kumar Singh has preferred the instant criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. Nil of 2001 under Section 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Dev Gaon, District-Azamgarh by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, district Azamgarh by which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh has rejected the application of the applicant Birendra Pal Singh for release of the tanker bearing Registration No. U.P.65 D-0375. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh has failed to examine the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in respect of release of the above mentioned motor vehicle under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act and 420 I.P.C. on the ground that the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh has no jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release the aforementioned vehicle. Only the district Collector has power under Section 6-A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to release such vehicle. The aforementioned view taken by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849 , because of the applicant is registered owner of seized tanker bearing Registration No. U.P.65 D-0375 and he has no knowledge that the driver has committed offence in respect of sale of seized solvent. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 4. On perusal of recovery memo (annexure-2), it is revealed that on date 27.5.2001 at about 10:15 A.M., Sri R.S. Dwivedi, Inspector In-charge, Police Station-Dev Gaon, District-Azamgarh alongwith other police personnels was patrolling in Maseerpur Bazar in his jurisdiction. Meanwhile, he received an information that certain persons were involved in the sale of solvent petroleum product by mis-branding it as petrol. Receiving such information, he reached at the place of occurrence situated in front of the shop of Jitendra Singh, Maseerpur Bazar, Police Station-Dev Gaon, District-Azamgarh and apprehended three persons, namely, Jitendra Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Verma and Birendra Singh. These arrested persons were taking out the solvent in the drum through pipe. Receiving such information, he reached at the place of occurrence situated in front of the shop of Jitendra Singh, Maseerpur Bazar, Police Station-Dev Gaon, District-Azamgarh and apprehended three persons, namely, Jitendra Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Verma and Birendra Singh. These arrested persons were taking out the solvent in the drum through pipe. On interrogation the aforementioned arrested persons informed the police personnels that they have purchased 12 kilo litres of solvent in the cheap rate and they used to sell this adulterated solvent by mis-branding it as petrol on the rates which are lesser than actual price rate of the petrol. Before the police personnels, they also confessed that they have drained out three drums of solvent and while they were filling the solvent in the 4th drum, police personnels had arrested them. Arrested persons failed to produce the requisite papers relating to the drained out solvent in four drums as well as rest of the filled solvent in the tanker. 5. The case was registered under Section 420 I.P.C. and for the violation of relevant petroleum products control orders. The aforementioned three accused persons were arrested and the tanker bearing Registration No. U.P.65 D-0375 alongwith four drums of adulterated solvent and one rubber pipe were seized by police. 6. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 155/2001 under Section 420 I.P.C. and Petroleum Products (Supply and Distribution) Order, 1972 and under Section 3/7 E.C. Act at police station Dev Gaon, District-Azamgarh on date 27.5.2001 at about 12:45 P.M. As a consequence thereof, Arun Kumar Singh claiming himself to be the registered owner of the tanker bearing Registration No. U.P.65 D-0375 moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release the said tanker. 7. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. -10, Azamgarh has rejected the release application of the applicant by recording the findings that the impugned matter relates to The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and according to the Section 6-A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, any essential commodities from the tanker seized in relation thereto. The Collector of the district has the jurisdiction for disposal of the essential commodity and the tanker so seized. The Collector of the district has the jurisdiction for disposal of the essential commodity and the tanker so seized. During the proceedings of seizure made in the Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955, the Criminal Courts do not have jurisdiction for disposal of commodity or the tanker so seized and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh dismissed the application of the applicant Birendra Pal Singh. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that application for release of the aforementioned tanker was made by the applicant Arun Kumar Singh claiming himself to be its registered owner (Annexure 5) but impugned order dated 19.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. -10, Azamgarh, at the very outset mentions that this application for release of tanker bearing Registration No. U.P.65 D-0375 was made by the applicant Birendra Pal Singh claiming himself to be the registered owner of the aforementioned tanker. This fact makes the case of the revisionist completely doubtful. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the following rulings : “(i) State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849 (ii) Shubhadi Shanker v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) in Cr.R. No. 122 of 1997 decided on 20th March, 1997" Due to legal and factual distinction, the revisionist may not get any benefit from the above cited rulings. For the ready reference, Section 6-A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is quoted as below : “6-A. Confiscation of essential commodity—(1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of 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 oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds 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, vessel 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 such 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 : (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 (1) of Section 6-C 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.” 9. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh does not suffer any illegality, perversity or impropriety, hence no interference is called for at this stage. 10. The criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed.