JUDGMENT

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. - Learned Single Judge of this Court, while adjudicating upon a dispute in the matter of disposal of property seized on the allegation of commission of offence under Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the EC Act") recorded its disagreement with the view taken by another coordinate Bench in CRMP No.1068 of 2014 (Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 17.12.2014. The matter accordingly has been referred to this Bench for answering following two questions of law:-

"(A) In absence of confiscation proceedings pending, whether Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 creates an absolute bar to deal with Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?

(B) Whether Section 6-E takes away the Judicial Authority to grant custody of vehicle, goods etc., pending appeal under Section 6-C of the Act of 1955 ? "

2. Before we proceed to answer the stated questions of law in this reference, we consider it apposite to set-out brief resumption of relevant facts and the factual backdrop of events giving rise to present reference, as stated infra.

3. A truck was seized by Police Station- Ratanpur in connection with Crime No.159/2017 on the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 41 (1-4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 379 IPC and Sections 3 & 7 of the EC Act as also Section 23 of the Petroleum Act 1934. An application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle was filed before jurisdictional Magistrate who rejected the application. Revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by holding that the Courts do not have any jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the vehicle in view of bar created under Section 6-E of the EC Act. That gave rise to filing of CRMP 1213 of 2007 (Sunil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of C.G.).

4. In another incident, a truck was seized by the police from one godown suspecting illegal transportation, storage of food grains in violation of provision of the EC Act and registered a criminal case alleging commission of offence under Section 3 &7 of the EC Act as also Section 407 read with Section 34 IPC against the owner of the godown and the driver of the truck. There also, an application for interim custody of truck, filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate was rejected. The revision against said order was also dismissed holding that in view of bar created under Section 6-E of the EC Act, criminal Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the vehicle. That gave rise to filing of CRMP 1475 of 2017.

5. When both the matters came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, upon examination of the statutory scheme of confiscation as engrafted in Section 6-A to 6-E of the EC Act and relying upon various decisions, held that Section 6-E of the EC Act takes away jurisdiction of the judicial authority with regard to possession, delivery etc. only when the confiscation is pending before the Collector and in the absence of pendency of confiscation proceeding before the Collector, the judicial authority shall have jurisdiction to grant possession of the vehicle, vessels, goods etc.

However, the afore view of learned the Single Judge in the aforesaid two cases came in conflict with the ratio of law laid down by coordinate Bench in CRMP No.1068 of 2014 (Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein it has been laid down that the Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Authority shall not have any jurisdiction with regard to grant of custody of the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. or to dispose off the vehicle seized under the EC Act. This conflict view has occasioned reference to aforesaid two questions of law for being answered by this Bench.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions have submitted that the provision contained in Section 6-E of the EC Act does not create absol