R.C.Deo Sharma - (1.) THE petitioner in these proceedings under section 482 CrPC, claims himself to be the owner of a motor truck No. USQ 9012. On 6-7-83 this truck leaded with paddy, Sarson and Arhar was seized by the police in connection with some alleged contravention of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. One Habib was the driver on the truck and two other persons, namely, Radhey Lal and Jai Mangal were also there. All these three persons were arrested and have since' been enlarged on bail. Mohammad Haneef applicant made an application before the Special Judge, Lucknow, for the release of the truck. THE learned Judge by his order dated 16-7-1983 rejected the application on the ground that proceedings about confiscation of the truck and for its release were all pending before the Collector, Lucknow, and consequently the applicant was advised to seek his remedy there and the application for release was rejected. THE applicant made another application before the [learned Special Judge which came up for hearing on 25-7-1983 when after hearing counsel for the parties the application was rejected on the ground that proceedings for release of the truck were already pending before the Collector and that even if Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act did not bar jurisdiction of the Special Judge, when the proceedings were already pending before the Collector it would be appropriate to obtain the order of release from that court rather than from the court of the Special Judge. It is against these two orders passed by the Special Judge that this petition has been filed with a prayer that the same may be quashed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also for the State. Admittedly the truck was seized along with certain essential commodities which were loaded thereon. The [proceedings for confiscation of essential commodities as also for the truck are pending before the Collector. These proceedings are under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the procedure laid down the owner or the person concerned will be given an opportunity to show cause before confiscation. This would be under section 6-B of the said Act. Thereafter an appeal is provided in section 6-C of the said Act which earlier lay before the judicial authority appointed by the State Government in that behalf but by an amendment of 1982 such appeal now lies to the State Government. The contention on behalf of the State is that the applicant should pursue his remedy before the Collector and if he feels aggrieved by the order passed he can prefer an appeal under section 6-C. It has also been contended on behalf of the State that section 6-E of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court or Tribunal in the matter. The counsel for the petitioner, however, maintains that section 6-E does not contemplate any proceedings about any truck or other vehicle seized in connection with transport of any essential commodity. Section 6-E deals with essential commodities only wiereas section 6-A refers both to essential commodities and the vehicle etc., used in carrying such essential commodity. The difference in the phraseology of the two sections, namely, 6-A and 6-E is material and meaning has to be given to the different terminology used in these two sections, If, therefore, section 6-A speaks both of essential commodities and vehicle cor animal etc., but section 6-E does not speak of vehicle or animal etc. used for carrying essential commodity then it cannot be said that section 6-E bars the: jurisdiction of any court otherwise competent to pass suitable orders with regard to the release of the vehicle. In a way, the learned Special Judge has also agreed with this interpretation but. has maintained that as proceedings for confiscation and release of truck are already pending before the Collector it would be appropriate that the matter is decided by the Collector himself and for this reason the learned Special Judge has refused to exercise the Jurisdiction under section 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not been denied that the instant case about contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is to be heard and decided by the Special Judge. That being so the Special Judge is the court competent to decide the matter. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to a court to pass appropriate orders about the interim custody of any property produced before the court in connection with a trial or inquiry. Since a charge-sheet has not yet been submitted and the case property including the vehicle has not yet been produced before that court, it may be legitimately said that section 451 CrPC has no application to the matter. Section 457 CrPC is another provision giving power to the court concerned to pass appropriate orders in respect of the property seized and reported by the police. It is true that the property is not such about which no further action for confiscation or release etc. is to be taken or about which any final report in the case itself had been made and the property might be lying undisposed of' without any appropriate order but all the same the property has not yet been produced before a criminal court within the meaning of section 457 CrPC. It may be produced in due course. The term " property not produced before the criminal court " denotes not only the property which is seized but finally withheld from being produced before the court but also the property which though seized has not yet been produced before the court and is in due course likely to be produced in the case. Support is lent to this contention by two decisions ; one of this Court and the other of the Supreme Court, namely, Ajai Singh v. Nathi Lal, 1978 AWC 225 = 1978 ACrR 140 and Ram Prakash Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1978 CrLJ 1120. The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 12-8-1983 stating that the fact of seizure of the truck and foodgrains as contemplated by section 457 CrPC, was reported to the count of Special Judge, Lucknow, along with the arrested accused persons as contemplated under section 167 CrPC. Time was allowed to the State to check up and rebut this contention if according to them it was not correct but nothing in rebuttal has been said. Even otherwise it appears that the seizure of the property must have been reported to the Special Judge who was competent to try the case when the matter relating to bail and release of the truck came up before him for decision. In this view of the matter the Special Judge was competent to pass an order allowing or rejecting the prayer for release of the truck according to its own merits. It may be indicated that in the proceedings before the Collector regarding confiscation as also release of the truck orders will be passed in due course. Learned counsel contends that it is likely to take several months before any orders could be passed and since the matter involved is about the release of a truck it is obviously urgent. In order, therefore, that any conflicting orders about the release of the truck may not be passed by the Collector and the Special Judge it would be appropriate to observe that the orders passed by the learned Special Judge at this stage would be only about the interim custody of the truck, seizure whereof has been reported to him. The appropriate orders about confiscation and release in proceedings under section 6-A subject to the right of appeal under section 6-C will be passed in due course under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. If occasion arises to pass any orders in this behalf at the time of the final disposal of the case relating to the contravention of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act in respect of the essential commodities seized in the truck the court would be free to pass appropriate orders according to the merits of the case.
(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16-7-1983 and 25-7-1983 are quashed. The matter shall be sent back to the court of the Special Judge, Lucknow, who will, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate orders on the application for release of the truck. Petition allowed.;