The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC against an order passed by a designated Confiscating Authority constituted under the E.C. Act.

Hon'ble Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been preferred by the petitioner for modification of condition No. 1 imposed under the impugned order dated 24-1-2011 (Annexure P-1) in the matter of release of vehicle.

3. The facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the petitioner is owner of tanker No. C.G.-07 C-2142, which was duly purchased by him from previous registered owner on 23-9-2010. The tanker was seized on 23-10-2010 by the Police Station, Churiya in connection with the commission of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act") under Case No. 248/10. The Addl. Collector, Rajnandgaon initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act by issuing a show-cause notice (Annexure P-2) on 3rd November, 2010. In the meantime, the police also filed charge-sheet on 31st December, 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. On petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle, the Confiscating Authority passed an order on 24th January, 2011, directing release of the vehicle, however, subject to 5 conditions stated in the order. Aggrieved by condition No. 1, which, according to the petitioner, is onerous and otherwise unwarranted, the petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, which was also not entertained on the ground that the same is not maintainable. An appeal was thereafter filed by the petitioner under Section 6-C of the E.C. Act, which has also not been entertained, stating that the appeal too is not maintainable. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of necessary direction for modification of the onerous and unwarranted condition imposed while ordering release of the tanker.

4. During the course of arguments, a question arose as to whether this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC would be maintainable against an order passed by a designated Confiscating Authority constituted under the E.C. Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are various orders passed by this Court from time to time- in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC in the matter of interim custody of article/vehicle arising out the confiscation proceedings under various enactments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Poonaram Nagpure Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 (3) M.P.H.T. 63 (CG), Vishal Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2003 (2) M.P.H.T. 46 (CG) : 2003 (1) CGLJ 71, Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of C.G. and others, 2007(4) M.P.H.T. 18 (CG) : 2007 (2) CGLJ 485, and Order dated 18-3-2011, passed in the case of Bharat Maiher Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Cri.M.P. No. 12/2011. He submits that as this Court has been entertaining petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, in the matter of release of article/vehicle in confiscating proceedings, this petition may also be entertained and appropriate direction may be issued.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits that this Court in the case of Janakram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 7-12-2010, in Cri.M.P. No. 823/10, has taken a view that the Collector, in its capacity as Confiscating Authority under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the Excise Act"), though a Tribunal, cannot be said to be an inferior Criminal Court within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.PC. He submits that the principles on which this Court has held that a criminal revision is not maintainable, are equally applicable in the present case also in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. He further submits that the scheme of the Excise Act and the E.C. Act in so far as confiscation is concerned is pari materia on the aspect relevant for consideration in the present case. Ther