HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3069 of 2011 Petitioner :- Sirazuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anurag Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.2.2011 passed in criminal Revision No. 196 of 2010 as well as order dated 23.10.2010 passed by A.C.J.M.-I Etawah and also issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the court concerned to release the petitioner's Vehicle No. U.P. 79-B-9545 Bulero in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Pick up Vehicle no. U.P. 79-B-9545 was seized by the police carrying L.P.G. Cylinders in Crime no. 441of 2010 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), P.S. Bakewar, District- Etawah. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Act for confiscation of the vehicle are pending before the District Magistrate, Etawah. An application for release of the aforesaid vehicle was moved by its registered owner Sirazuddin before A.C.J.M.-I, Etawah, which was dismissed on the ground that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the District Magistrate and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the same ground that by Special Judge ( E.C. Act), Etawah on 1.2.2011. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Magistrate as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed illegality in rejecting the application for release as well as revision on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle in view of the fact that confiscation proceedings were pending.
In State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Rameshwar Rathod, 1990 (27) ACC 480, the Apex Court, repelling the contention that in view of the provisions of Section 6A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the criminal Court had no jurisdiction, held that the criminal Court retains jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction.
The aforesaid view of the Apex Court was followed by a decision of this Court in Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (60) ACC 481.
In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that pending confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle pending trial. Such a view cannot be accepted. Learned Magistrate as well as Special Judge, E.C. Act committed illegality in rejecting the release application as well the revision.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223, it is not desirable that a motor vehicle be kept at the police station for a long time as that may result in the vehicle becoming junk. In these circumstances, the application for release should have been allowed by the Magistrate subject certain conditions and both the impugned orders being contrary to law, are liable to be quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 23.10.2010 and 1.2.2011 are quashed.
Learned Magistrate is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in supurdgi of its registered owner on furnishing adequate to its satisfaction on the following conditions :-
(i) Till further orders of the Court, the petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the vehicle in question in any manner.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court or the District Magistrate and as and when directed to do so at his own expenses.
Order Date :- 4.8.2011 KU