The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of legal provisions under Section 6A and Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in relation to the interim custody of a seized auto.

JUDGMENT

D.Ramesh, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for interim custody of the auto bearing No.AP 16 TQ 1220, seized in connection with crime in FIR No.401 of 2019 on the file of the Kanchikacherla Police Station, Krishna District for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short E.C. Act, 1955).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 16 TQ 1220 and used to engage the auto for various commercial transactions, in the meantime, the 2nd respondent seized his vehicle and produced before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama in connection with F.I.R.No.401 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 7 of E.C.Act, 1955. Further it is contended that the petitioner was not having any role in procuring the rice, once the vehicle is engaged, the person who has taken the vehicle will load the same in his premises and the petitioner will not be having any role in the work. However, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.356 of 2020 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama seeking interim custody of the vehicle and it was dismissed vide order, dated 03-03-2020, holding that -

"The decision rendered in Shambhanu Dayal Agarwala (supra) & Oma Ram (supra) has been reiterated and followed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Arvind Kuma, (2012) Supp AIR SC 8 holding that the release order passed in favaour of the respondents therein without regards to Section 6A and Section 6E of the E.C. Act, 1955 is improper.

The above discussed legal position manifest that this Court under section 6E of the Act is barred. Hence, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in the interest of justice"

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in W.P.No.10365 of 2020 wherein this Court has categorically held that:

"if section 6-A proceedings were initiated and pending the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru might be right in returning the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the vehicle. However, since Section 6-A proceedings are not initiated so far and as the crime above is registered and investigation is pending, in the considered view of this Court, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru is competent to entertain the petition of the petitioner. Otherwise the petitioner would be left without remedy".

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has categorically stated that the vehicle belonging to this Crime was handed over to the Joint Collector but no proceedings under Section 6-A are initiated.

6. In view of the ratio decided by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama in Crl.M.P.No.356 of 2020 dated 03.03.2020, is set aside and this matter is remanded to the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama directing to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C in accordance with the order passed in W.P.No.10365 of 2020 on the file of this Court and dispose of the same within a period of four (4) days from the date of receipt of this order.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.