Sanjay Telreja vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6785 MP

                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                        ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2023

                  CRIMINAL REVISION NO.777 OF 2013

       BETWEEN:-

       SANJAY   TELREJA    S/O     SHRI
       SHYAMLAL TALREJA, AGED 35 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION:    BUSINEES      R/O
       SAMADHIYA COLONY,     LASHKAR,
       GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  ........APPLICANT

       (BY SHRI SANJAY BAHIRANI- ADVOCATE)

       AND

       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       COLLECTOR,   DISTRICT-  GWALIOR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               ........RESPONDENT

       (BY PRAMOD PACHAURI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This revision coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      ORDER

This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 30/07/2013 passed by Second VII Additional Session Judge Gwalior, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.190/2013 by which appeal of the applicant has been remanded back to the Collector only for deciding the question of provisio of section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act and directed that in lieu of the aforesaid section order be passed.

As per prosecution story, on 27/03/2012 at 7:00 PM under the instruction of the District Supply Officer, Civil Supply Officers had inspected the work shop of Bunty Shekh which runs the work shop on which repairing of four wheeler vehicle is made by him. While conducting the inspection at the work shop, Inspecting Authority had found four gas cylinder (BPCL) and one half filled gas cylinder were kept out of the door of the house of Munim Shekh and out of the said cylinders one gas cylinder of BPC was attached with the gas pipe re filler regulator of electricity motor meaning thereby the refilling of gas is made by Bunty Shekh and further alleged that gas is being refilled by the petitioner in his Maruti Van and Inspecting Authority had caught the petitioner while refilling the gas in his vehicle from the domestic gas cylinder. On the basis of aforesaid, Maruti Van has been seized by the said Authority.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.422/2003 (Rajmohan Kapoor Vs. State of M.P. And others) & Criminal Revision No.427/2003 (Roshan Kapoor Vs. State of M.P. And others) vide orders dated 19/03/2009 wherein in para 7 of the order the

Court has held as under: -

"7. On perusal of the second provisio appended to Sub Section(1) of Section 6-A of the Act, it is abundantly clear, that the owner of such vehicle shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation; a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by the said vehicle and if the option is accepted by the owner, then of course the seizure of the vehicle will not be required. Similar view has been in the cases of G. Subbarama Naidu Vs. Joint Collector, Chittor [AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 82] & Ashraf Khan Vs. State of M.P. In Cr. Revision No.184/02 & Rayees Khan Vs. State of M.P. [2007 (1) MPLJ 260].

On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector, it appears that he has not given such option to the petitioner, instead he has given an order to confiscate the seized Maruti Van.

In light of order relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and in view of the provision of Section 6-A of the Act, this Court is of the view if the applicant deposits Rs.25,000/- before the competent Court, then vehicle seized i.e. Maruti Van by the order of Collector be released to the petitioner/owner of the vehicle.

In view of the above, this revision deserves to be allowed, while setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, revision is allowed and impugned order is set-aside.

Certified copy as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) RAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH JUDGE SINGH rahul GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab 676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE 00D487,

PARIHAR serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED 910FD4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.04.28 10:59:23 +05'30'