Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.G. Deshpande, J.
The State of Maharashtra ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Lalit S. Nagpal others ..... Respondents.
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 123, 124, 125, 261 and 262 of 1996 and Criminal Revision Application No. 41 of 1997, decided on 24-12-1998.
Advocates appeared :
D.S. Mhaispurkar, Ms. Kantharia and Adsule, A.P.Ps. for the State.
H.A. Solkar, for the respondent in C.R.A Nos. 123/96, 124/96 125/96.
R.A. Shaikh, for the respondent in C.R.A No. 262/96.
Sections 3, 6-A, 6-C, 6-E, 12-A and 12-AC-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 452-Seizure of tamper with Nephtha-Released on bond Challenged-Release of seized property effected on ground that Sections 12-A and 12-AC of Act impose no restriction on release-Held, Section 12-AC being subject to other provisions of Act and overrides provisions of Cr PC-Section 6-E of Act also takes away all powers of special court for such release-Thus only Collector and State Government compass order for release-Release order quashed.-Section 12-AC starts with the words save as otherwise provided in this Act which means that if some other provision is made in this Act regarding the powers of the Special Court or regarding applicability of the Cr PC or its non- applicability, then those provisions will override and Cr PC will be of no help in that regard. Such a saving provision is there in Section 6-E which specifically lays down that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force any 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. This provision is clear in itself leaving no scope for doubt and it clearly takes away all the powers granted to all the courts or to any Court under any law for the time being in force. This provision clearly shows that neither the Special Court constituted under the E.c. Act nor the Sessions Court working under the Cr PC as provided under Section 12-AC can have any powers of jurisdiction to pass order regarding the property seized under the provisions of E.C. Act. The contentions, therefore, required to be rejected and the submissions made by the learned APP are required to be accepted that the Special Court has no power whatsoever to pass orders in respect of property. Section 6-E refers to seizure of essential commodity under Section 3 or seizure of any package, covering receptacle, in which the commodity was found or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such commodity, Section 3 is in respect of powers to control, production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities and it empowers the Central Government to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodity. Therefore, if a commodity is an essential commodity under Section 3 and if the essential commodity is seized along with the package, covering or receptacle in which it was kept or any animal, vehicle or vessel or other conveyance which was kept or any animal, vehicle or vessel or other conveyance which was used for carrying such a commodity then it is only the Collector and the State Government has powers to pass orders regarding disposal of delivery, possession etc. of the essential commodity, packing or the vehicle and no courts, tribunal or other authority has any jurisdiction in that regard. It is, therefore, clear that the Special Court lack jurisdiction to pass any orders of any nature whatsoever regarding essential commodity or the vehicle, packing etc. Therefore, on this court also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Sections 6-E, 6-A and 3-Bar @ jurisdiction of Special Commodity-It cannot be said that Section 6-E is only in respect of confiscation proceedings.-Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is in respect of two contingencies i.e. seizure of essential commodity in pursuance of an order under Section 3 or seizure of such commodity, vehicle, vessel etc. pending confiscation under Section 6A. The provisions of Sections 3 and 6- A are altogether different. Section 3 gives power of control, production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities to the Central Government whereas Section 6-A is in respect of confiscation of seized commodities. Seizure of essential commodity with package, covering or vehicle under Section 3 is, therefore, different from the confiscation under Section 6-A and it is further clarified in Section 6-A itself which provides that "Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3, a report to that effect shall be sent to the Collector and he may thereafter order confiscation of the said commodity, package or the vehicle." The argument, therefore, that Section 6-E is only in respect of confiscation proceedings cannot be accepted.
Sections 6-E and 12-AC-The Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders in respect of release of property seized under the Act.-Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act specifically lays down that "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any 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." This provision is clear in itself leaving no scope for doubt and it clearly takes away all the powers granted to all the courts or to any court under any law for the time being in force. This provision clearly shows that neither the Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act nor the Sessions Court working under the Criminal Procedure Code nor the Special Court exercising powers under the Criminal Procedure Code as provided under Section 12-AC can have any powers or jurisdiction to pass order regarding the property seized under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Section 6-E refers to seizure of essential commodity under Section 3 or seizure of any package, covering, receptacle, in which the commodity was found or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such commodity. Section 3 is in respect of powers to control, production, supply distribution etc. of essential commodities and it empowers the Central Government to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodity. Therefore, if a commodity is an essential commodity under Section 3 and if the essential commodity is seized along with the package, covering or receptacle in which it was kept or any animal, vehicle or vessel or other conveyance which was used for carrying such a commodity then it is only the Collector and the State Government has powers to pass orders regarding disposal or delivery, possession etc. of the essential commodity, packing or the vehicle and no courts, tribunal or other authority has any jurisdiction in that regard. It is, therefore, clear that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to pass any orders of any nature whatsoever regarding essential commodity or the vehicle, packing, etc.
2. The question is whether the Special Judge appointed under the Essential Commodities Act, has powers to pass interim orders in respect of release of property involved in the commission of offences under the Essential Commodities Act.
3. To appreciate this question, facts of CRA No. 123 of 1996 are reproduced:
On 12-3-1996, the CB Control, CID, Mumbai received some definite information that the respondents along with others is illegally carrying out mixing of Naphtha with MTO and Peanten i.e. petroleum products and sell the said adulterated mixture as petrol in India at various places. One of such consignment of Naphtha was to be transported in the night between 12-3-1996 and 13-3-1996. Therefore, a close watch was kept on the tankers which were to carry Naphtha. One of such tanker spotted at Ghatkopar and was followed by the raiding party. Ultimately, the tanker stopped near the company of the respondents in mid night and thereafter raid was carried out. It was found that five tankers were standing within the compound of the company and there were about 27 tankers around the company's property. Some of which were loaded with Naphtha, MTO, Pantene, etc. In the compound where the tankers were standings, work of mixing of petroleum products with Naphtha was going on. Therefore, all these tankers, petroleum products, documents, cash etc. were seized and an offence was registered against the respondents.
4. The respondents thereafter applied to the Special Judge, Mumbai, for releasing their tankers and the Judge while allowing their applications by his orders dated 29-3-1996 imposed the following conditions:--
i) The applicant/accused shall furnish an Indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each for each of those 8 tankers in favour of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay on the requisite stamp papers on usual terms and conditions within 7 days after the disposal of the seized Nafta and other material by the Competent Authority.
ii) This bond shall be attested by the Sr. P.I. C.B. Control (Food) and shall be signed by two witnesses.
iii) The applicant-accused shall also execute a PR bond in the like amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each for each of the 8 tankers in terms of this order within 7 days from the disposal of the seized Nafta and other articles by the Competent Authority.
iv) Upon the applicant/accused duly complying with Clauses 1 to 3 hereinabove and upon the police properly verifying about the ownership of each of those 8 seized tankers, the police shall do hand over the interim custody of those 8 "empty" tankers to the applicant/accused forthwith in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
v) Misc. Appln. No. 287/96 stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copy expedited.
5. The aforesaid order is reproduced from CRA 123 of 1996 and in other matters similar orders pertaining to the property were passed. It was contended by the learned A.P.P. that the Special Judge did not give any reasons for releasing the property on the bond of the accused, that there was no application of judicial mind and the order came to be passed in a routine manner without considering the gravity and seriousness and implications of the offence. It was also contended that the Special Judge did not take into consideration the Maharashtra Amendment to section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, which take away the power of the Special Court to deal with the property, so seized.
6. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. Solkar that so far as property in respect of the offence was committed, the Special Court, as a Criminal Court had powers to deal with the property and pass suitable orders regarding the custody of the property pen
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
