1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been submitted for exercising the inherent powers by this Court with a prayer to set aside the order of the trial Judge dated 27th March 2012 in relation to Crime No. 20/12, registered by Police Station Survaya which was confirmed on revision bearing No. 49/12, vide order dated 12th April 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge Shivpuri (M.P.) refusing to issue directions for releasing the seized vehicle (Truck No. MP 07 G 4366) owned by the petitioner, on interim supurdginama, till finality of the confiscation proceedings pending before the competent authority.

2. The facts, in short just for the decision of the petition are that on 2nd March 2012, 180 bags (near about 80 Qu.) of wheat belonging to the Public Distribution System were found to have been illegally transported in the offending vehicle for sale in the open market. On information, the truck with goods was intercepted and was seized by the Assistant Supply Officer Shivpuri. After requisite inquiry, the FIR was lodged in the Police Station Survaya. Investigation was put in motion. After seizure was effected, the confiscation proceedings were instituted before the Collector. The petitioner had applied for delivery of the seized truck under section 451/457 of CrPC. before the Court of JMFC Shivpuri, but his application was rejected. On revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the said order was affirmed, hence, this petition.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of the trial Judge as well as the revisional Court are not in consonance with the provisions of law. It is contended that the learned two Courts-below committed grave error in not releasing the seized truck under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act on the ground that the seized vehicle is subject to the confiscation proceedings which are pending before the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Court had the authority under the law to grant the interim relief including the interim delivery on supurdginama till finality of the confiscation proceedings before the Court of law. It is stated that the petitioner is the legal and registered owner of the seized vehicle, who is also ready to comply with all the conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the petition appropriate directions may be issued to the competent Court/authority to release the vehicle in question subject to furnishing supurdginama in accordance with the terms of the order of this Court.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the petition of the petitioner for delivery of the seized vehicle used for the purpose of transportation and selling of the wheat belonging to Public Distribution System in the open market. It is, thus,

“Provided further that in the case of any vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.”

This proviso makes it abundantly clear that the Legislature in its wisdom felt that the vehicle need not be confiscated even if it is involved in a series of offences and it should be released if the owner is prepared to pay fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodities.”

8. Further, in Mewa lal Sharma v. State of M.P. through Police Station Mihona District Bhind 2011 (1) MPWN 27 = 2011 (2) EFR 574 this Court held :

“While considering the facts that applicant is registered owner of the seized vehicle no prolific purpose would be served by letting the vehicle idle in the police station for such long period. In vie