Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The petitioner, owner of an auto rickshaw seized for transporting illegally sourced PDS rice, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the seizure was illegal and a direction to release the vehicle (!) . On May 27, 2020, authorities intercepted the vehicle at Kothuru Centre and found 700 Kgs of PDS rice being transported illegally, leading to the seizure of both the rice and the vehicle under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (!) . The petitioner initially sought interim custody from the District Collector, but the petition was rejected on the grounds that the case was booked under Section 7 (!) . Both the District Collector and the Judicial First Class Magistrate initially rejected the custody petitions, citing a lack of jurisdiction (!) . Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, bars courts, tribunals, or other authorities from making orders regarding seized essential commodities or vehicles if confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A are pending, vesting such authority solely with the Collector or State Government (!) . The Court noted that while the Collector has jurisdiction if Section 6-A proceedings are initiated, no such proceedings had been started in this case, only a crime case under Section 188 IPC was registered (!) . Since no Section 6-A proceedings were pending, the Court held that the Judicial First Class Magistrate was competent to entertain the petitioner's petition for interim custody under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the petitioner from being left without a remedy (!) . The writ petition was allowed, directing the Station House Officer of Alamuru Police Station to produce the seized auto rickshaw before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, within three days (!) .

Vemuluri Swamy Naidu, S/o. Satyam vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(AP) 878

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Vemuluri Swamy Naidu, S/o. Satyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The petitioner, owner of an auto rickshaw seized for transporting illegally sourced PDS rice, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the seizure was illegal and a direction to release the vehicle (!) .
On May 27, 2020, authorities intercepted the vehicle at Kothuru Centre and found 700 Kgs of PDS rice being transported illegally, leading to the seizure of both the rice and the vehicle under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (!) .
The petitioner initially sought interim custody from the District Collector, but the petition was rejected on the grounds that the case was booked under Section 7 (!) .
Both the District Collector and the Judicial First Class Magistrate initially rejected the custody petitions, citing a lack of jurisdiction (!) .
Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, bars courts, tribunals, or other authorities from making orders regarding seized essential commodities or vehicles if confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A are pending, vesting such authority solely with the Collector or State Government (!) .
The Court noted that while the Collector has jurisdiction if Section 6-A proceedings are initiated, no such proceedings had been started in this case, only a crime case under Section 188 IPC was registered (!) .
Since no Section 6-A proceedings were pending, the Court held that the Judicial First Class Magistrate was competent to entertain the petitioner's petition for interim custody under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the petitioner from being left without a remedy (!) .
The writ petition was allowed, directing the Station House Officer of Alamuru Police Station to produce the seized auto rickshaw before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, within three days (!) .

ORDER :

The petitioner seeks to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioner’s Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TD 7201 in relation to Crime No.144 of 2020 of Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District without following the procedure as contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to release the vehicle.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is the owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TD 7201. On the early hours of 27.05.2020, the 2nd respondent along with his staff while checking the vehicles at Kothuru Centre, Alamuru Mandal, intercepted the aforesaid vehicle and on verification, found 700 Kgs of PDS rice was being illegally transported. He seized the essential commodity as well as the vehicle and prepared an occurrence report and basing on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2020 of Alamuru Police Station under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “EC Act”)

3. The petitioner who is the owner-cum-driver of the seized Auto Rickshaw submits that he filed a petition before the 3rd respondent for interim custody o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(AP) 878

U. DURGA PRASAD RAOVemuluri Swamy Naidu, S/o. Satyam – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Vemuluri Swamy Naidu, S/o. Satyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent