ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed assailing the order dated 01.12.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.650 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, wherein the petition filed by petitioner under Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing No.TS 07 UF 8800 is dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2020 at 11.00 a.m. Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station along with his staff on receipt of credible information rushed to Donabanda check post and while conducting vehicle check, found the accused transporting PDS rice illegally without any valid licence. Police seized the vehicle and 44 bags of rice, in total 9 quintals and recorded confession of the accused. Basing on the same, crime was registered under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “EC Act”).

3. This petition is filed on behalf of the registered owner of the vehicle stating that he is entitled for custody of the same. The Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that in view of the bar under the EC Act, the Court has no jurisdiction.

4. Heard Sri Balvantha Devadass, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 7 of EC Act would not come into the way to grant interim custody, as the proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act are not initiated and only intimation about the seizure of vehicle has been sent to the Magistrate. Therefore, the Court below has got jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the vehicle. He submits that the Court below by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal1 and Oma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and others2 has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief against the seizure under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly in this case no proceedings under 6A of EC Act were initiated before the authorities and it is stated that only PDS rice was seized and crime was registered, as such the learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He submits that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle.

6. Per contra, Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the proceedings under 6A of EC Act were not initiated in respect of seized vehicle. He relied on the judgment of Telangana High Court in Crl.P.No.5454 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020.

7. In identical circumstances, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.10365 of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 as held thus:

“On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of legal

1 (1990) 3 SCC 549

2 AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 1844

position, the present case falls under peculiar circumstances. As per Section 6-E of the EC Act, when an essential commodity and conveyance used for carrying essential commodity were seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of EC Act, then, pending the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A, it is the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6-C shall alone but not the Court or Tribunal or other authority, have the power to pass orders regarding possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6-E reads thus:

Sec.6-E. 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, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending con