Pankaj Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5615 of 2026

Pankaj Kumar Agarwal

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Yash Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 81

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present Application U/S 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed by Sessions Judge, Firozabad, in Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2025 (Pankaj Agarwal vs. State) as well as order dated 12.12.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 635 of 2025, F.I.R dated 05.11.2025, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Firozabad North, District Firozabad.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Courts concerned have wrongly rejected the application of the applicant for releasing the rice belonging to the applicant vide order dated 12.12.2025 and 23.01.2026. As per the version of the F.I.R., on 11.10.2025 at 5:00 pm, a Truck No. RJ 37 GA 5572, loaded with 335.80 quintals of rice, was intercepted and seized. The applicant is a whole sale dealer in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Firozabad, and he was involved in the business of trading rice and grains. He was a valid licence holder. It is further submitted that the applicant moved an application before the learned Magistrate for releasing of his rice which was rejected by the learned Court concerned vide order dated 12.12.2025 for the reason that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the District Magistrate.

¶10

Being aggrieved vide aforesaid order dated 12.12.2025, the applicant

¶11

NA528 No. 5615 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

filed a Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2025, and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2026.

¶14

Being aggrieved vide aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed the present application for setting aside the impugned orders with a further prayer to release the seized 335.80 quintals of rice belonging to the applicant.

¶15

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no final confiscation order under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, has been passed in respect of rice of the applicant by the District Magistrate and the rice is a perishable item and the same is lying in vulnerable conditions.

¶16

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is ready to accept any condition which will be imposed by the learned Court concerned. It is also submitted that the rice is not a scheduled commodity and it is open to sell in the open market and there is no bar for selling and purchasing the rice from the market. The Court concerned has wrongly held that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is pending before the District Magistrate, while there is no such proceeding pending before the District Magistrate.

¶17

There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the rice and no one claimed its ownership before the Court concerned, therefore, the applicant is entitled for release of the rice claimed by him.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by the applicant and stated that there is no error either of law or about facts of this case in the impugned orders and the learned Courts concerned have rightly rejected the release application of the applicant. The 335.80 quintals of rice are liable to be confiscated as the proceedings in this regard, as per provision under Section 6-A, is pending before the District Magistrate.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rameshwar Rathore MANU/SC/0323/1990:1990 CriLJ1756 , argued that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts is not completely ousted in this matter.

¶20

NA528 No. 5615 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

I have heard submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

¶23

Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the Criminal Courts to pass appropriate orders with regard to custody and disposal of property read as follows:

¶24

"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the Inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

¶25

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-

¶26

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

¶27

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

¶28

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

¶29

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim

¶30

NA528 No. 5615 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

within six months from the date of such proclamation."

¶33

Section 451 empowers the Court to pass appropriate order with regard to the custody and disposal of property pending conclusion of inquiry or trial. The power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously. The Apex Court in the case of Basawa Kom Dyarnangouda Patil v. State of Mysore MANU/SC/0675/1977: 1977CriLJ1141 , has observed as under:

¶34

"The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

¶35

In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/1110/2002: [2002]SUPP3SCR39 , the Apex Court has issued direction for exercising powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in relation to

¶36

NA528 No. 5615 of 2026

¶37

5

¶38

valuable articles, vehicles and currency notes kept in police custody pending trial.

¶39

The case of State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0323/1990 : 1990CriLJ1756 (supra) related to the release of the truck seized for alleged contravention of Essential Commodities Act. The Apex Court repelling the contention that in view of the provisions of Section 6-A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction held that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction. In view of the Apex Court's decision the Magistrate took an erroneous view that the jurisdiction of Criminal Court was completely ousted by the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶40

In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. The learned Counsel for the applicant took recourse of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (XLVI) 2003 ACC 223 (SC) and in the case of Virendra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (LX) 2008 ACC 481: 2008 (2) ACR 1444 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law regarding the disposal of property as per provisions under Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure thereby stating that the power under Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. The seized article should be handed over to its owner for which the Court may follow the procedure regarding the evidence required for the purpose, bonds and sureties should be taken in this regard. The photos of such articles should be attested and countersigned by the owner of the goods and the accused and the person to whom custody may be given. The Court can impose any other appropriate condition too in this regard. Regarding the seized articles, the appropriate order should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period is not useful. It can be given by taking bond, guarantee and security. This Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh (supra) has also held that the criminal courts have jurisdiction under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate order with regard to the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. Even if the provisions of Section 6A and Section 7 of the

¶41

NA528 No. 5615 of 2026

¶42

6

¶43

Essential Commodities Act have been attracted in the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Rameshwar Rathore (XXVII)1990 ACC 480 (SC) has also held thereby repelling the contentions that in view of the provisions of Section 6A and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction, that the criminal court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted in such matter. Therefore, I come to this conclusion regarding the facts of this case that the courts concerned took an erroneous view that the jurisdiction of criminal court is ousted in the case where the proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act is said to have been pending before the Magistrate. Without entering into the merit of this fact as to whether the proceeding under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, is pending in the court of District Magistrate or not as is denied by the applicant or whether the article is liable to be confiscated or not. I am of this view that even if it is presumed that proceedings are pending, the release of the articles should not be ignored in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) .

¶44

In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds it expedient that this application be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed .

¶45

The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by C.J.M., Firozabad, and order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the District Judge, Firozabad, in Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2025, are hereby set-aside.

¶46

The learned Court concerned/Magistrate is hereby directed to release the rice weighing 335.80 quintals, seized on 11.10.2025, in favour of the applicant after furnishing appropriate bonds with sureties and guarantee by the applicant, and any other reasonable condition imposed by the learned Court concerned/Magistrate.

¶47

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶48

February 18, 2026 A.P. Pandey

¶49

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Naazreen Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Preeti and Another vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Khushbu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrakant Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Hrishikesh Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Tannu @ Tanveer and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others