K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a direction to the respondents to deliver the possession of vehicle No. MPA 9813 to the applicant. On February 5, 1976, according to the case of the prosecution, the aforesaid vehicle brought stones from Panna to village Karthat. After unloading the stones the vehicle loaded one bag rice fine quality l qtl., 14 bags of rice about 13 qtls, 8 bags grain barley, wheat 8 qtls. Matar l bag, Jwar one bag and was carrying the same from Karthat to Madhya Pradesh when it was apprehended near village Kalinda-ka-Purwa at about 3.30 A.M. on 6.2.1976. The said village Kalinda-Ka-Purwa is situate at a distance of 1/2 kilometer from the U. P. M. P. border.
(2.) THESE articles, as is the case of the prosecution, were being taken to Ajaigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the above vehicle was seized along with the foodgrains mentioned above, the first information report was lodged in the police station Naraini at about 6.30 A.M. on 6th February, 1976. The applicant thereafter filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Banda for the release of the aforesaid truck. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date on the ground that as the Vehicle was liable to be confiscated the same could not be released. The applicant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The revision was also rejected on 23-2-1976. After rejection of the aforesaid revision the present application under section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed for quashing of the two orders and further for the release of the truck. The first question that was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant was that since the second proviso to Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1975 permits or confers power to give an option to an owner of a Vehicle which is seized under section 6-A 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, therefore, the Magistrate should have got the value of the vehicle deposited in the Government treasury and released the same for utilisation of the applicant. Counsel urged that the aforesaid proviso is mandatory in cha-racter and leaves no discretion with the authorities not to give such an opportunity to the person whose commodity is seized. The submission made by the learned counsel has no merit. Section 6-A was initially amended by parliament by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1966 with a view to achieve the policy of the law viz. for maintaining or increasing the supplies of any commodity or for securing proper distribution of the commodity scized. Scction 6-A confers the power the Collector for bcing exercised in ms capacity as a part of the administration.This section cannot be pressed rato service by a court while dealing ith a case whcther under investigation, enquiry or trial. The language of Section 6-A makes it abundantly clear that same is to be exercised by the Collector if he thinks expedient so to do. the applicant, therefore, could not get the vehicle by relying on the proviso mentioned above. The submission, therefore, fails.
(3.) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the Magistrate had junsdiction and power apart from Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act conferred on him under the Criminal Procedure in exercise of which the vehicle could be released. he learned counsel for the applicant l not bring any provision to my notice which entitled the Magistrate to pass any order for the release of the vehicle during the pendcncy of the investigation. In fact, the learned countor the applicant invited my attention in this behalf to Section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 452 Cr .p.c to my mind appiles ony to cases where the property is produced before any criminal court during the pendency of any enquiry or trial and section 452 applies to the stage when such an enquiry or trial is concluded. The only other provision to which reference was made by the learned counsel for the applicant was section 457(1)of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973. This section be pressed into service only when the inquiry or trial has concluded. The Magistrate has not been conferred any power by this section to rect for the release of the vehicle seized during the investigation of a crirnmal case. Accordingly the application made by the applicant for the release of the vehicle was misconceived and was rightly rejected. Assuming that the Magistrate had the power to grant the prayer made in the application for the release of the vehicle it may be stated that the present was not a fit case where such a power should have been exercised. The exer-cise of power by the Magistrate was likely to create a conflict with the power which has been conferred by Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and which is exercisable by the Collector in his administrative side. The consideration for passing an order under section 6-A may be different from those which are required to be takcn into account by a court of law in making a release. In this view of the rnatter the present application filed. by the applicant ih this Court is misconceived. He should have applied to the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act for the release of the vehicle. It will of course be up to the Collector to pass any order that he likes so to do on the facts and the circumstances of the present case.;