A court lacks jurisdiction to order the release of a seized vehicle when confiscation proceedings are pending as per Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. The petitioner by filing the instant petition has questioned the correctness and judicial propriety of impugned order dated 17^th June, 2022 under Annexure-2 passed in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar for having confirmed the order dated 8^th March, 2022 passed in CMC No.412 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar, who rejected an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis release of a vehicle seized in connection with Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.449 dated 29^th October, 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1777 of 2021 registered under Sections 379 , 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as ‘the E.C. Act’) on the ground that the same is not tenable in law.

2. The vehicle in question bearing registration No.OR05AR6633 was seized on 28^th October, 2021 and the fact of seizure was intimated to the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar thereafter and in that connection, the petitioner moved the said court for its release and interim custody. But the same was denied by order dated 8th March, 2022. The order of the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in CMC No.412 of 2021 was challenged before the Sessions Court, however, it ended with the same result. In other words, the revisional court also declined to direct interim release of the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who claimed himself as its owner. Being unsuccessful, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the impugned order under Annexure-2 and for a consequential direction for the release and custody of the vehicle on any such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent nor at any point of time the alleged vehicle was ever involved in any such illegal activity. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot or was having any knowledge about the transportation of oil in the seized vehicle and since he is not involved in the incident, the learned court below should have directed interim release of the vehicle subject to conditions. Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC on the other hand submits that the learned courts below did not commit any error and rightly rejected the request of the petitioner since the vehicle could not have been released in his favour in view of Section 6 -E of the E.C. Act and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-2 passed by the Sessions Court upholding the rejection of the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

4. The learned Sessions Court refused to release the seized vehicle on the ground that the confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector and as per Section 6 -E of the Essential Commodities Act, release of vehicle used in the conveyance of essential commodities shall be by the Collector. In fact, the leaned court below concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to pass order with regard to disposal of the seized vehicle in view of the bar contained in Section 6 -E of the E.C. Act. So to speak, the vehicle was not allowed to be released in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the confiscation proceeding is pending before the Collector, Keonjhar, who is authorized to deal with the matter.

5. Section 6 -E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is reproduced herein below:

“6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases - Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, co