BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1.Santhoshkumar

2.Sathiyakrishnan ... Petitioners Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.14 of 2023) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to issue direction to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi to set aside the docket order dated 20.09.2024 and number the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order passed in Na.Ka.No.COLR/4382/23-Q1 dated 31.08.2023 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Leninkumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

*****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to set aside the docket order dated 20.09.2024 and to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the confiscation proceedings initiated in respect of his vehicle.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.14 of 2023, registered for the offence of violation of Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. During the course of investigation, his vehicle, namely Ashok Leyland Dost bearing registration No.KL-09- R-3555, was seized. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his proceedings dated 31.08.2023, confiscated the vehicle and observed that the petitioner could file an appeal against the said order before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, was returned on the ground that, as per the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part VI - Section 1 [wrongly mentioned as Part IV - Section 1 in the impugned docket order], dated 05.07.2023, the jurisdiction is vested with the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli, and therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section

6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides for an appeal against the confiscation order to the Judicial Authority appointed by the State; that the Judicial Authority appointed by the State is the Principal District Judge as per the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1981; and that the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part VI - Section 1, dated 05.07.2023, relied upon by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, would have no bearing insofar as the appeal to be filed against the confiscation proceedings is concerned, and therefore, sought for setting aside the docket order and a direction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the confiscation proceedings.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that the Judicial Authority is the Principal District Judge, as per Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; and that the petitioner can file an appeal against the confiscation proceedings only before the Judicial Authority.

5. Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as follows:

“6E. 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 confiscation under section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned under section 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make o