Dismissed

Vasu Pradip Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023WP/628/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge Criminal Bench dismissed this writ petition, noting that the proper remedy to challenge the Collector's order of confiscation is a Civil Writ Petition. The court disposed of the writ petition and interim application as not pressed, granting liberty to file the civil petition.

What did the court decide?

Disposed as not pressed; liberty granted to file a separate Civil Writ Petition.

Vasu Pradip Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

20.wp-628-23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2023

¶5

Vasu Pradip Shah
and another ….. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION [STAMP] NO.20412 OF 2023 IN

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2023

¶10

Mr. P.A. Pol, Advocate i/b. Pol Legal Juris for the Petitioners.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶12

DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed challenging

¶15

the different orders. The cause for filing this Petition is the

¶16

action taken by the investigating agency on 31.1.2022. On

¶17

prior information, a truck bearing No.MH-10-CR-5009,

¶18

carrying 30 tones of rice, was intercepted and seized. It is

¶19

case of the prosecution that the Petitioner No.1 was the

¶20

1 of 6

¶21

Deshmane(PS)

¶22

: 2 : 20.wp-628-23.odt

¶23

owner of the rice and the Petitioner No.2 was concerned
with the truck. C.R. No.76/2022 was registered at Panvel
City Police Station under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘said Act’). The
Petitioners preferred separate applications at different times.
The Petitioner No.1 preferred Criminal Misc. Application
No.213/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Panvel for return of the rice. The Petitioner No.2 preferred
Criminal Misc. Application No.209/2022 for return of the
truck. Said application was made before the same learned
Magistrate. Both these applications were rejected by the
learned Magistrate vide his orders dated 4.3.2022. Learned
Magistrate held that he has no jurisdiction to release the
muddemal properties in view of the bar under Section 6E of
the said Act. Both these orders were separately challenged
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel in Criminal
Revision Application No.31/2022 as well as Criminal
Revision Application No.30/2022. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge dismissed the Revisions. He had observed

¶24

2 of 6

¶25

: 3 : 20.wp-628-23.odt

¶26

that the proceeding was already initiated before the Revenue
Officer and hence the Revision Applications were not
maintainable. These orders, under those Revision
Applications, were passed on 15.7.2022.

¶27

2.In the meantime, the Collector, Raigad started
the proceedings under said Act for confiscation of rice and
the truck. Vide order dated 21.6.2022, the Collector
confiscated rice and the truck. This order was challenged
separately by both these Petitioners vide Criminal Appeal
Nos.64/2022 and 71/2022. These Appeals were preferred
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel and both these
Appeals were partly allowed. The confiscation of rice and
the consequent order passed by the Collector for selling
them in ration shops was not disturbed. However, the truck
was directed to be returned to the registered owner on
executing Supurtnama along with bank guarantee of 25% of
the value of the truck. The Appeals were decided by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 6C of the
said Act.

¶28

3 of 6

¶29

: 4 : 20.wp-628-23.odt

¶30

3.At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners

¶31

submit that the challenge to the orders passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel in Criminal Misc.
Application Nos.209/2022 and 213/2022 which were
upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
Application Nos.31/2022 & 30/2022, is not being pressed
by the Petitioners because according to Shri Pol there is bar
under Section 6E of the said Act for the Court of learned
Magistrate to pass order under Cr.P.C. for return of property.
He submitted that in view of the order passed by the
Collector, the only remedy for the Petitioners is to challenge
it by way of Appeal under Section 6C of the said Act. Section
6C(1) of the said Act reads thus :

¶32

“6C. Appeal.--- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under section 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to any judicial authority by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.”

¶33

4 of 6

¶34

: 5 : 20.wp-628-23.odt

¶35

4.Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted

¶36

that order of confiscation is passed by the Collector and it
was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge because
he was the Judicial Authority appointed by the State
Government before whom the Appeal was maintainable
under that sub-section. This Appeal is not under the
provisions of Cr.P.C. This was passed against the order of
confiscation passed by the Collector.

¶37

5.Shri Pol submitted that the order of confiscation
is affecting the Petitioner’s rights which are civil in nature
and, therefore, the proper remedy would be Civil Writ
Petition and not Criminal Writ Petition. Learned APP agrees
with this submission.

¶38

6.Considering the stand taken by both learned
counsel, following order is passed :

¶39

:: O R D E R ::

¶40

i.The Petition is dismissed as not pressed, as far as
the challenge to the orders dated 4.3.2022 passed
in Misc. Application No.209/2022 and 213/2022

¶41

5 of 6

¶42

: 6 : 20.wp-628-23.odt

¶43

passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel
and the orders dated 15.7.2022 passed in Criminal
Revision Application Nos.31/2022 and 30/2022 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel are
concerned.

¶44

ii.As far as the other orders i.e. the order passed in
Criminal Appeal Nos.64/2022 & 71/2022 by
Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel and the order
dated 21.6.2022 passed by the Collector, Raigad
under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 are concerned, the Petitioners are at liberty to
file a separate Civil Writ Petition and, therefore, the
present Criminal Writ Petition challenging those
orders is disposed of as not pressed.

¶45

iii. With this liberty and observations, Criminal Writ
Petition along with Interim Application are
disposed of.

¶46

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶47

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE

¶48

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2023.12.14 11:44:15 +0530

¶49

Deshmane (PS)

¶50

6 of 6

Vasu Pradip Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu Pradip Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Shivaji Bhalke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Shivaji Bhalke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jayanti Waghji Heliya Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S S S Enterprises Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Starwing Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.