(1) The central legal issue that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant custody of vehicle seized for violation of an order made in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?

(2) The petitioner is registered owner of four wheeler bearing registration No. CG-04-J.D.-2238. The said vehicle has been seized by the Police Station – Karora, District Raipur in connection with Crime No. 298/13 for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (henceforth ‘EC Act, 1955’) as the said vehicle was found involved in transporting the rice reserved for the poor and needy people under the Public Distribution System.

(3) The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, made an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth ‘the Code’) stating inter alia that he, being the registered owner of the vehicle, is entitled for custody of the vehicle in question as it is lying unused in the Police Station. The said application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor.

(4) Learned trial Magistrate, by its order dated 16.09.2014, rejected the said application holding inter alia that the said vehicle is subject to confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 and, therefore, interim custody of said vehicle cannot be granted to the petitioner.

(5) Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate, petitioner preferred revision before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur.

(6) The revisional Court, by its impugned order dated 22nd November, 2014, concurred with the findings recorded by trial Magistrate holding that Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of the Magistrate making order with regard to the disposal of the property/vehicle as the said vehicle was found involved in commission of offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and it has been seized accordingly.

(7) Appearing for the applicant, Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled for custody of the vehicle and Section 6E of the EC Act would not come in the way to get interim custody to him as the proceeding under section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 has not been initiated as only intimation of the seizure of the vehicle has been sent to learned Magistrate and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle in question under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(8) Appearing for the State, Shri Neeraj Jain, learned Govt. Advocate would submit that the proceeding for confiscation has already been initiated and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the vehicle in question.

(9) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein with utmost circumspection.

(10) In order to consider to rival submission made at bar, questioning the impugned order, it would be proper to have quick survey of the relevant statutory provisions: Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 provides confiscation of essential commodities including vehicle etc; Section 6B of the EC Act, 1955 provides for issuance of show cause notice before confiscation; Section 6Cof the Act, 1955 provides appeal against the order of confiscation; and Section 6E of the Act, 1955 in relation to the bar of the jurisdiction in certain cases. Section 6E of the Act states as under:-

“6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-Whenever any essential commodities is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyanc