Dismissed

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023A482/10540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the applicant's application for the release of a truck confiscated under the Essential Commodities Act. It held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain a release application once confiscation proceedings were invoked, dismissing the plea while noting remedies against the confiscation remain available.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10540 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- M/S Expo Trans India Ltd Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

The applicant has come up challenging an order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah, declining to release the applicant's vehicle, a Tanker bearing Registration No. UP 53 DT 2868, that was seized in connection with Crime No. 386 of 2021 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act'), P.S. Jaswant, District Etawah.

¶6

It has been pointed out that an earlier application dated 30.09.2021 made for the same purpose was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah, holding that he had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle, which has been seized in the exercise of powers of confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act. It was remarked that according to the report of the District Magistrate in the matter, confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were pending. This order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah dated 30.09.2021 was upheld in revision by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, EC Act, Etawah vide judgment and order dated 08.03.2022. Both these orders were impugned before this Court in Application under Section 482 No. 27382 of 2022. The said application was allowed in part, quashing both orders of the Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge with liberty to the applicant to make an application to the Magistrate along with the relevant documents of ownership within 15 days from the date of that order. The

¶7

Magistrate was directed to dispose of the release application afresh, expeditiously vide order dated 05.09.2022. It is in compliance with the aforesaid order, the matter again came up before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Etawah. The Magistrate has taken note of the fact that according to the report of the District Magistrate dated 27.09.2022 that the applicant's vehicle has been confiscated in favour of the State by an order under Section 6-A of the Act passed by the District Magistrate. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, therefore, held that he had no jurisdiction to release the applicant's tanker that already stands confiscated in favour of the State in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. He has, accordingly, dismissed the release application. Aggrieved, the owner of the truck has instituted the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶8

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant in support of this application at length and Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State, who has opposed the motion to admit this application to hearing.

¶9

Section 6-A of the Act gives power to the Collector to confiscate in case of seizure of essential commodities, including any animal vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carriage of goods or passengers for hire in the carriage of such essential commodity, if an order under Section 3 of the Act in relation to that commodity has been made, and, there is a violation of that order. After seizure of the essential commodity, proceedings are to be taken for its confiscation, subject to rights of the owner of the seized commodity or the vehicle etc. that are spelt out by the Statute. These rights are both substantive and procedural. Amongst the procedural rights is the right to show cause against confiscation envisaged under Section 6-B of

¶10

the Act. There are then substantive rights such as that envisaged under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act, which postulates an option to pay in lieu of confiscation to the owner. If a confiscation order is ultimately made, the order is appealable under Section 6-C of the Act to a Judicial Authority appointed by the State Government.

¶11

In the conceptus of the above provisions for seizure and confiscation, as also remedies against seizure and confiscation, this Court is of considered opinion that no application for release under Section 451 or 457 of the Code could be entertained by the Magistrate. The Magistrate's order is therefore, flawless and there is no illegality about it. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate.

¶12

However, it is made clear that since the order impugned has been made on account of lack of jurisdiction in the Judicial Magistrate, it will be open to the applicant to pursue such remedy against the confiscation, as may be available to him under the law.

¶13

This application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Deepak

¶15

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheer Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Sharan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others