Hon’ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.—This Criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.6.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh in Case Crime No. 155 of 2001 under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Deo Gaon, District Azamgarh whereby declining to release the Tanker and solvent loaded therein.

2. Heard Sri V. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record.

3. The facts giving rise to this revision put briefly are these :

On 27.5.2001 the applicant and co-accused were found selling solvent adulterated petrol. The applicant was driver on Tanker No. U.P. 65-D/0375 in which 12000 litres solvent was loaded. The Tanker carrying solvent was seized.

An application for release of the Tanker was moved under Section 457, Cr.P.C. by the applicant on the grounds that challan for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and prosecution were stopped with immediate effect by Government order dated 19.12.2000. It was alleged that the solvent was loaded from the licensed firm M/s Abhijeet Techno-chemicals Limited, Kanpur for transportation to licensed firm Earth Chemical Industries, Diyana Road, Mahgo, Jamsedpur. The applicant held valid driving licence, R.C. road permit and other documents.

4. The Court below rejected the application for release on the ground that the jurisdiction to confiscate the Tanker and goods vested with District Collector and during confiscation proceedings the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to release vehicle and goods loaded in it.

5. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds that no proceeding or notice as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was served upon the applicant. The Court below has not taken into consideration the aspect of decay of vehicle which is standing in the open place.

6. The learned Counsel for the revisionist placing reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathore, 1990 (2) ACC 480, argued that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts is not completely ousted in this matter.

7. Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the Criminal Courts to pass appropriate orders with regard to custody and disposal of property read as follows :

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.—When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “property” includes—

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

xxx xxx xxx

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.—(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the article