Shailendra Singha vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 636 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Shailendra Singha vs The State Of Assam on 16 May, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010189532024




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.Pet./1132/2024

            SHAILENDRA SINGHA
            S/O LATE RAMADHAR SINGH
            R/O WARD NO. 13, BONGAIGAON
            P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON,
            DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
            PIN-783380



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S CHOUDHURY, MR R.CHANDA,MS R MEDHI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                               ORDER

16.05.2025

Heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

This application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing Page No.# 2/3

the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chirang (BTAD) at Kajalgaon in Kajalgaon P.S. Case No. 39/2024.

The oil tanker bearing registration no. NL-01/AC-1962 was seized by Police in connection with the aforesaid case registered under Section 379 of the IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and read with Section 23 of the Petroleum Act.

The petitioner filed an application seeking custody of the aforesaid vehicle containing large quantity of petroleum product in the tanker. The said prayer was rejected by the court below.

Mr. Choudhury has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Rameshwar Rathod, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 21. Paragraph 6 of the said judgement is quoted under:

" 6. It was next contended by the respondent before the High Court that the Criminal Court was empowered under section 7 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle after due and proper inquiry and therefore the proceedings by the District Col- lector under section 6A and Section 6B of the Act should be quashed. Reliance was placed on several decisions and authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Rasheed, AIR[1967] Mysore 231; Sri Bharat Mahey & Ors. v. The State of U. P. &Ors., [1975] Crl. L.J 890as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge in State of M.P. v. Basant Kumar, [1972] JLJ Short Note No. 99. On a consideration of the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the conclusion that the criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in view of the enactment of the provisions of Section 6A as well as section 7 of the Act, it cannot be held that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the enactment ofthese provisions, it would be useless to hold that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting section 6A read with section 7 would be defeated. We are, however, unable to accept this contention because normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary criminal Court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new Act., In view of the language used and in the context in which this language has been used, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High Court was therefore right in passing the order under consideration and in the facts and circumstances of the case to return the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing the security In the premise the appeal must fail and is dismissed. There win, however, be no order as to costs."

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides. The Criminal Courts jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 523 read with section 6- A and 7 of the of the Essential Commodities Act is not completely ousted even if the case is registered under Section 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Page No.# 3/3

Therefore, this court is of the opinion that keeping the aforesaid vehicle with the petroleum product would not serve any purpose for investigation of the case.

Therefore, it is hereby directed that the oil tanker bearing registration no. NL-01/AC-1962 shall be given in custody of its registered owner after doing proper verification of documents and identification.

Moreover, a bond of Rs.50,000/- shall also be taken from the registered owner of the aforesaid seized vehicle before giving custody.

With the above, the criminal petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant