The jurisdiction of courts to order possession of seized essential commodities under section 457 read with section 451 of the CrPC is not barred in the absence of a confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector or the State Government under sections 6-A or 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act.

Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 6-E - SECTION 457, 451 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ORDER POSSESSION OF SEIZED ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6-E - COURT'S JURISDICTION BARRED ONLY IF CONFISCATION PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE COLLECTOR OR STATE GOVERNMENT - NO BAR IF NO CONFISCATION PROCEEDING PENDING - COURT CAN ORDER POSSESSION, DELIVERY, DISPOSAL, RELEASE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SEIZED ESSENTIAL COMMODITY.
Fact of the Case:

Police seized 39 gas cylinders from the respondent, a dealer of Handi Gas, for violating section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondent filed an application under section 457 read with section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for possession of the cylinders. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application, holding that the court had jurisdiction to do so as no confiscation proceeding was pending before the Collector or the State Government under sections 6-A or 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to order possession of the seized gas cylinders as there was no confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector or the State Government under sections 6-A or 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. The court interpreted section 6-E of the Act, which bars the jurisdiction of courts in certain cases, to mean that the bar applies only if a confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector or the State Government. In the absence of such a proceeding, the court has jurisdiction to make orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of the seized essential commodity.
Issues: Whether the court had jurisdiction to order possession of the seized gas cylinders in the absence of a confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector or the State Government under sections 6-A or 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, which bars the jurisdiction of courts in certain cases, to hold that the bar applies only if a confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector or the State Government. In the absence of such a proceeding, the court has jurisdiction to make orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of the seized essential commodity. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court decision in State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Rathod, where the court had held that the jurisdiction of criminal courts is ousted in respect of a crime under the Essential Commodities Act. The court noted that the decision in Rameshwar Rathod was based on the provisions of section 6-A of the Act, which did not contain an express bar on the jurisdiction of courts. However, section 6-E, which was introduced later, contains an express bar on the jurisdiction of courts in cases where a confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector or the State Government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's revision application, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the respondent's application for possession of the seized gas cylinders.

JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---The State has challenged the order dated 7th November, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, allowing Misc. Criminal Application No. 32 of 1996 preferred by the respondent under section 457 read with section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting the possession of 39 gas cylinders, which were seized by the police on 1st October, 1996 in Crime No. 290 of 1996 registered under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant is a dealer of Handi Gas. However, those cylinders were not stored at a storage point to be fixed under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation and Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 and thus there was violation of section 3, which is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial is pending. However, pending trial, the above application was submitted and the Court allowed the said application.

2.The only question of law raised by Shri Wahane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant/State, is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, should not have allowed the application under section 457 read with section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because in the matter of essential commodity, when the said commodity is seized, it is the Collector, who is supposed to deal with and dispose of the said commodity in accordance with the provisions of sections 6-A to 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is an express bar to the Court to exercise the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the provisions of sections 6-A to 6-E of the said Act and, therefore, he submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

3.Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, is in accordance with law and the Court has relied on the ratio as laid down in the case of (State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Rathod)1, reported in 1990 Cri.L.J. 1756 S.C. and, therefore, there is no need to interfere and/or quash and set aside the impugned order.

4.It is pertinent to note that the police have seized the gas cylinders as referred to above on 1st October, 1996. The petitioner have submitted application on 19-10-96 for getting the 60 cylinders on supratnama. Notice was issued to the State on 19th October, 1996. On 4th November, 1996, the State filed a say that under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, only the Collector has power to release the property and, therefore, the application is not tenable. The further say was filed by the State 5-11-96 making reference to section 6-E of the said Act and requested to reject the application.

5.Looking to the provisions of law, on 5th November, 1996, the Court passed an order to make a statement as to whether the Collector has been informed about the seizure of the gas cylinders in question and whether any proceeding is started by the Collector in relation to the gas cylinders in question. It appears that on 6th November, 1996, the matter was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and till that time, irrespective of the above order dated 5th November, 1996, till the end of the Court hours, the learned A.P.P., Shri Kate, who appeared in the said proceeding, could not give any information to the Court as to whether any proceeding for confiscation is pending before the Collector. However, the State proceeded with the argument and submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction.

6.The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the provisions of section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and relying on the case of Rameshwar Rathod, cited supra, passed the impugned order. The Supreme Court, considering the provisions of section 6-A, has observed, "Normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary Criminal Court in resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis