JUDGMENT H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that Auto Rickshaw bearing No.KA-34/B-4450 which was seized by the Kampli police for illegally transporting 9 plastic cans of coloured kerosene on 24/6/2016 at about 8.15 a.m. and hence, the application is filed before the Magistrate for release of the vehicle by accused No.2, who is the owner of the vehicle and the Magistrate Court rejected the said application on 3/8/2016 holding that the competent authority to release the vehicle i.e. the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate also filed revision before the Sessions Court and the same also came to be rejected vide order dated 75/10/2016 confirming the order passed by the Magistrate and hence, the petitioner by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. approached this Court. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and the Courts below have rejected his application filed under Section 457 holding that no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, which is illegal and improper. 5. The Deputy Commissioner without giving any opportunity has passed the order stating that a criminal case is pending before the judicial Court against the accused and even without conducting any personal enquiry and without perusing the document he has passed the order. He further contended that the petitioner was using the said vehicle for his livelihood and his entire family members are depending upon the income of the said vehicle and if the said vehicle is kept idle in the police station, it will destroy due to air, light and rain and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the order of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and order to release the auto rickshaw. 6. The petitioner's counsel in his argument vehemently contends that the petitioner has approached all the authorities including the Deputy Commissioner and also the Magistrate before him and case is pending with regard to the penal provision and he could not get any favouable order and if the vehicle is subjected to a rain and sun light, its value will be deprecated and hence, sought the direction. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP in his arguments contends that the order impugned passed by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Court cannot be interfered and those Courts are not having any jurisdiction to release the vehicle since there is a clear bar under Section 6-E of the E.C Act 1955. Hence the petition cannot be entertained. 8. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the learned Addl. SPP, the point that arise for my consideration is whether the Courts below has committed an error in not entertaining the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. 9. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case that Kampli police have seized the vehicle with kerosene amounting to 324 ltrs. and the proceedings is initiated against this petitioner and others alleging that they have committed the offences which are punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the E.C. act 1955. 10. On perusal of the proviso of 6-E of the E.C. Act, 1955 it is clear that whenever any essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned under Section 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. 11. The Courts below both the original Court also the revisional Court have taken note of the very same provision and comes to the conclusion that there was no any jurisdiction and rejected the claim. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that the petitioner has also approached the Deputy Commissioner on 6/8/2016 and the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 22/8/2016 that the matter is seized before the Court, since the case is pending before the Court and further action would be taken based on the order of the Court. No doubt, the Courts below have not committed any error in not entertaining the application, but, on perusal of the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to understand the proviso of Section 6-E of the E.C. Act, 1955, and the powers are given to the Deputy Commissioner, when the vehicle was seized and the confiscation proceedings has to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 6(1) and the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the application of the petitioner and the same has not been done and while rejecting the request also an observation is made that the case is pending before the Court and the case which was pending before the Magistrate is in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955, and when the powers are conferred to the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the confiscation of the vehicle, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have exercised his powers and the same has not been done. 12. For having taken note of the proviso to Section 6-E of the E.C. Act, this Court cannot entertain the petition by quashing the order of the Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court. However, the petitioner is directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner and seek for release of the vehicle and the Deputy Commissioner has to consider the application of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner and copy of this order and dispose the application in accordance with law. The petition is disposed with the above direction.