STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. A P ABDUL LATHIEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the State. It is directed against the order dt. 5-2-1985 of the Special Court, Mysore, in Crl. Misc. No. 15 of 1985. By that order, the Special Court purporting to exercise its power under the provisions contained in Chap. XXXIV of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (the Code) has released the truck in question in favour of the respondents. The order apparently appears to be one under S. 457 of the Code. He could not have invoked the other allied provisions for the reason that there was neither an enquiry nor a trial pending with him for any offence involving the vehicle in question.

(2.) The vehicle had been seized by the Tahsildar, Mysore, suspecting that it had been used to carry some essential commodity in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983 (the order). He had handed over the seized vehicle with the essential commodity contained in it to the Yelwala Police of Mysore for further action. The Police registered a case, sent the F.I.R. to the Court and placed the essential commodity before the Deputy Commissioner. Along with the F.I.R. sent to the Court, the original seizure mahazar was also forwarded to the Court. At that stage, the respondent herein appeared before the Court and applied for interim entrustment of the truck stating that he was innocent of the matter and also that the vehicle had not been used to commit any offence. The Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed that application contending, inter alia, that the Court had absolutely no powers in the matter and, that, if at all, it was only the Deputy Commissioner of the District who had such powers as provided under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Stating that "the powers of this Court as a Court of jurisdiction to try the offence under S. 451 or under S. 457 Cr. P.C. are not taken away by any of the provisions of S. 6 or Ss. 6A to 6E of the Act the Special Court repelling the contention of the Public Prosecutor entrusted the truck to the respondent stipulating certain conditions to the said order.

(3.) Challenging the order of the Special Court the Government Pleader drew my attention to two decisions, both of this Court, and submitted that the Special Court had taken a wrong view of the law and, therefore, its order should be quashed. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, his learned counsel drew my attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court and also to S. 6E of the Act and submitted that the order impugned herein does not call for any interference.