ORDER

The present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in criminal revision No.28/2023, wherein the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in criminal case No.2248/2018 is under challenge, was dismissed on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 6E of Essential Commodities Act,1955, whenever any order under Section 3 in relation to any essential commodity or any vehicle 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 jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other convenience.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order impugned rejecting the application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of confiscated vehicle No.MP07-GA-6681, which was seized while transporting the essential commodity i.e. 9,700 liters Kerosine, apart from that some chemical in six packets of 30 kg each and 1000 liters of adulterated kerosine is per se illegal, as the very procedure adopted by the Collector of confiscating the vehicle as well as the essential commodity, which was in pursuance of essential commodities Act was not proper and, therefore, the order of Collector was not sustainable, but igonring the said aspect JMFC as well as the Revisional Court had rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle, which is per se illegal.

3. Per contra, Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, as there is a clear bar under Section 6C of Essential Commodities Act for any Court, Tribunal or authority to pass any order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity or the vehicle concerned. It was further submitted that when there is a clear bar under the aforesaid law, the very application of the petitioner under Section 451 and 457 of the Essential Commodities Act was itself not maintainable and hence, the rejection of the said application cannot be said to be bad in law, thus, it was prayed that the present petition has no substance and accordingly the same be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 lays down a specific bar for any Court, Tribunal or any authority with regard to passing of any orders regarding possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity or any vehicle confiscated under Section 3, 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. For reference Section 6E is reproduce as under:-

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 judicial authority appointed under section 6C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any other court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

6. Section 6E specifically provides that whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation to or any package, covering or