Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Geetha Decorticaters – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 5139 and 5200 of 2020
Decided On : 20-11-2020
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 451 , 457 , 482 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 6-A, 7 (1) (A) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 34 ,420 – Vehicles in the custody of court – Release of vehicles - Petitioners have purchased those vehicles by obtaining loan and in case, the vehicles are allowed to be in the custody of police during investigation or in the custody of Court, it is difficult for them to eke out their livelihood while paying installments to the financiers - Whether the investigation is completed or not or whether the trial is pending or not - Whether any proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act are initiated or not –
Finding of the court : if no proceedings are initiated before the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, the Magistrate continued to hold jurisdiction to deal with the property seized by the police in any crime registered against the violators of Control Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act when the same is pending either at the Crime stage or at the trial stage - If proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act are initiated, the Magistrate automatically lose its jurisdiction, in such case the Joint Collector alone will hold the jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act -
Result : Quash petition dismissed
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Criminal Petition Nos. 5139 and 5220 of 2020
1. The criminal petition No. 5139 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") questioning the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 752 of 2020 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri and direct the respondents to release the Eicher vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TJ 1738. A case in Crime No. 148 of 2020 on the file of O.D. Cheruvu Police Station, Ananthapur District was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and Section 7 (1) (A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the E.C. Act.").
2. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2020 also sought identical relief i.e., to quash the order dated 17.06.2020 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 495 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class - cum - XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama including the F.I.R. No. 416 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020 on the file of Veerullapadu Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 407 of I.P.C. and under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. The respondents intercepted the vehicles of the petitioners, found that the PDS rice is allegedly transporting in those vehicles in contravention of Section 3 of the E.C. Act besides the offences under the provisions of I.P.C., seized the vehicles under the cover of mediators report, and the vehicles were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kadiri and Nandigama respectively.
4. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5139 of 2020 filed an application Crl.M.P. No. 752 of 2020 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., claiming interim custody of Eicher vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TJ 1738 pending investigation, but the said application was dismissed.
5. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2020 filed an application Crl.M.P. No. 495 of 2020 under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., claiming interim custody of Auto bearing No. AP 16TY 0725, the said application was also dismissed.
6. Since the dispute is with regard to competence of the Magistrate to release the vehicles seized for violation of provisions of the E.C. Act, the Criminal Petition No. 5139 of 2020 and Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2020 are heard together.
7. The contentions raised and point involved in both the petitions is also one and the same, I find that it is expedient to decide both the petitions by common order.
8. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that if the vehicles are allowed to be in the custody of the Court, they may be exposed to rain and heat, which would cause substantial damage to the vehicles, become derelict and not fit for use in course of time. Apart from that, both the petitioners have purchased those vehicles by obtaining loan and in case, the vehicles are allowed to be in the custody of police during investigation or in the custody of Court, it is difficult for them to eke out their livelihood while paying installments to the financiers, requested to issue a direction for release of the vehicles as interim custody.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the orders passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri and Judicial Magistrate of First Class - cum - XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama, while contending that the petitioners are not entitled for release of vehicles since such power is conferred on the Joint Commissioner when the proceedings under Section 6A of the E.C. Act were initiated, to order confiscation of the vehicle, thereby the Joint Collector alone is competent to release the vehicle if any application is filed, but not the Magistrate and that there is a clear bar on the jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 6-E of the E.C. Act, requested to dismiss both the petitions.
10. The petitioner in Criminal Pe
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
