IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
M/S Raghuvir Saran Madan Murari (Wholesaler) - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Anr. - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 1325 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2019
Confiscation - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - 6A, 6B, 6C, 6E, Cr.P.C. - 451
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a wholesaler of foodgrains, moved an application for release of seized essential commodity (food grains) under Section 451 Cr.P.C. during confiscation proceedings under The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The application was rejected, leading to the present criminal revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of essential commodity during pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of The Essential Commodities Act was not maintainable. The preliminary objection raised by the State that the application is not maintainable was sustained.
Issues: The issue for consideration was whether the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of seized food grains during pendency of confiscation proceedings under The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including Section 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6E, clearly bar the jurisdiction of the criminal court with regard to possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of essential commodities during pendency of confiscation proceedings. The court also emphasized that the special provisions of the Act prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of any conflict.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as the court found no manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order, and the observations and findings recorded by the Magistrate were sustainable in the eye of the law.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the opposite party no.1/State of U.P.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi, whereby the application of the revisionist for release of seized essential commodity (food grains) in his favour has been rejected.
Issue
3. The issue for consideration before this Court is "whether the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of seized food grains (case property) is maintainable during pendency of confiscation proceedings before the authority concerned under The Essential Commodities Act, 1955"?
Basic Facts
4. Filtering out unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to present criminal revision are that revisionist is wholesaler of foodgrains, pulses and oil seeds. On 10.1.2019, the opposite party no.2 (District Manager, P.C.F. Jhansi) alongwith General Manager C.W.C. Chirgaon, Regional Manager P.C.F. Jhansi inspected the campus of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. At the time of inspection a truck No. UP 93 BT 4064 loaded with Urad was found standing there and there was no mark of any purchase centre on the loaded bags of Urad. As such 650 bags (50 kg. Each) of Urad was taken into custody by the officers concerned. The FIR in this regard was lodged against unknown person on 11.1.2019 registered as Case No. 0010 of 2019, under Section 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act at Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi. During confiscation proceeding, the revisionist moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. dated 1.3.2019 before the ACJM, Court No.1, Jhansi, for release of the aforesaid essential commodity (food grains) claiming his ownership, on which police of Police station Chirgaon, District Jhansi submitted report before the concerned Magistrate mentioning that the aforesaid bags of Urad belongs to the revisionist. Thereafter, the aforesaid release application of the revisionist has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 on the ground that under Section 6A of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 there is a provision of confiscation of the essential commodities and confiscation proceeding is going on before the authority concerned, therefore, the application for release of the revisionist is not maintainable.
Submissions on behalf of the revisionist
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that since there is no dispute about the ownership of seized essential commodity (Urad), therefore, same is liable to be released in his favour and Magistrate concerned has committed legal error in rejecting the release application of the revisionist.
Submissions on behalf of the State of U.P.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. raised priliminary objection that application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist was not maintainable, because under section 6A of The Essential Commodities Act, there is a provision of confiscation and the same is going on, therefore, Section 451 Cr.P.C. will not be attracted in view of bar contained under Section 6E of The Essential Commodities Act, hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis of relevant provisions
7. Before delving into the issue, it would be useful to quote the relevant provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with regard to confiscation of seized essential commodities as well as relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., which are as follows:-
“6A. Confiscation of Essential Commodity
Where any essential Commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Sec. 3 in relation thereto a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency-town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, d
Manju Kumari and another vs. State of Bihar and others
Divisional Forest Officer and other Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and others 1985 (4) SCC 573
State of Best Bengal Vs. Sujeet Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129
State of Bihar and another Vs. Arvind Kumar and another (2012) 12 SCC 395
State of M.P. and others Vs. Uday Singh and others 2019 SCC Online SC 420
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.