Allowed

Vannavarapu Rohini, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2021CRLRC/431/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the revision and granted interim custody of a seized vehicle to the petitioner. The court held that Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act does not bar the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C. because confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A had not been initiated at the time of the application.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18-02-2021 setting aside the dismissal of the petition, and directing that the vehicle be released on the petitioner executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with a surety.

Vannavarapu Rohini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.431 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present criminal revision case is filed assailing the order dated 18-02-2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2021 in Crime No.671 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cumJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District, wherein the petition filed by petitioner herein under Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e. TATA XENON bearing No.AP 37 TC 4717, is dismissed.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that on 23-12-2020 at 9.00 a.m. on credible information, while the police were conducting vehicle checking at the outskirts of Khammampadu Village, Vatsavai Mandal, they found the accused were transporting PDS rice illegally without any valid licence, police seized the vehicle and 50 bags of rice and recorded confession of the accused. Basing on the same, crime was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 7 (1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “ EC Act ”).

¶6

This petition is filed on behalf of the registered owner of the vehicle stating that she is entitled for custody of the same. The Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that in view of the bar under the EC Act, the Court has no jurisdiction.

¶7

¶8

Heard Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 7 of EC Act would not come into the way to grant interim custody, as the proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act are not initiated and only intimation about the seizure of vehicle has been sent to the Magistrate. Therefore, the Court below has got jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the vehicle. He submits that the Court below by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal¹ and Oma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and others² has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief against the seizure under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly in this case no proceedings under 6A of EC Act were initiated before the authorities and it is stated that only PDS rice was seized and crime was registered, as such the learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He submits that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle.

¶10

Per contra, Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the proceedings under 6A of EC Act were not initiated in respect of seized vehicle. He relied on the judgment of Telangana High Court in Crl.P.No.5454 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020.

¶11

1 (1990) 3 SCC 549

¶12

2 AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 1844

¶13

¶14

In identical circumstances, a coordinate bench of this Court in

¶15

W.P.No.10365 of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 as held thus:

¶16

“ On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of legal position, the present case falls under peculiar circumstances. As per Section 6-E of the EC Act, when an essential commodity and conveyance used for carrying essential commodity were seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of EC Act, then, pending the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A, it is the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6-C shall alone but not the Court or Tribunal or other authority, have the power to pass orders regarding possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6-E reads thus:

¶17

Sec.6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases:-

¶18

Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, 1[the State Government concerned under Section 6-C] shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, 2[any Court, Tribunal or other authority] shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.]

¶19

Therefore, Section 6-E engrafts a bar on Court, Tribunal or other authority to pass any order in relation to the essential commodity or the vehicle which were seized pending confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A and in such instances, the Collector or the State Government concerned under Section 6-C alone shall have the power to pass suitable orders in respect of the seized essential commodity and concerned vehicle. In similar circumstances, in B.Pundarikam and others Vs. The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others (2012(4) ALT 370 = MANU/AP/0279/2012) a learned Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh applying the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of EC Act, directed the respondent/District Collector to determine the market value of the vehicle involved in illegal transportation of essential commodities and further directed the writ petitioner who was the owner of the said vehicle to offer bank guarantee or an immovable

¶20

¶21

property security or any third party security proportionate to the value of the vehicle for granting interim custody pending confiscation proceedings. From the above jurisprudence, there can be no demur that pending confiscation proceedings, it is the District Collector who is authorized to pass orders for granting interim custody of the seized vehicle. However, in the instant case, the submission of learned Government Pleader on instructions is that on seizure of the rice and Auto Rickshaw, the Police have only registered Crime No.144 of 2020 but so far no proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act are initiated before 3^rd respondent. Therefore, it appears the 3^rd respondent rightly rejected the petition filed before him seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Thereafter the petitioner, it appears, filed a petition under Section 457 of Cr.PC before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru but the same was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, probably keeping in mind the mandate under Section 6-E of EC Act, it should be noted that if Section 6-A proceedings were initiated and pending the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru might be right in returning the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.PC seeking interim custody of the vehicle. However, since Section 6-A proceedings are not initiated so far and as the crime above is registered and investigation is pending, in the considered view of this court, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru is competent to entertain the petition of the petitioner. Otherwise the petitioner would be left without remedy. ”

¶22

In the light of the order passed by this Court supra, the Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the petition seeking interim custody of vehicle when the proceedings are not initiated under Section 6A of EC Act in respect of the seized vehicle. Therefore, without hesitation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 18-02-2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2021 in Crime No.671 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, is set aside. The

¶24

¶25

vehicle i.e. TATA XENON bearing No.AP 37 TC 4717 shall be given interim custody to the petitioner on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned Principal Junior Civil Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet.

¶26

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

¶27

____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

Date : 20-07-2021 ARR

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.431 of 2021

¶32