BANARSI LAL BANSILAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is registered owner of offending tanker bearing registration No.CG-05/AE-4584 which was found involved in the commission of Crime No.118/2019 by Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') and on the same day i.e. 15-4-2019, the vehicle was seized by the jurisdictional police on which the petitioner applied under Section 457 of the CrPC for interim custody of the said vehicle before the Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur. The said application was rejected by the Railway Magistrate finding that the jurisdiction of criminal Court is barred in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 Cr.M.P.No.1068/2014, decided on 17-12-2014 holding that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction in view of the specificbar contained in Section 6E of the Act of 1955 against which revision petition was preferred which has also been rejected by the learned revisional Court and feeling aggrieved against which this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

(2.) Mr. Pradeep Saksena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in not granting custody of the vehicle to the petitioner in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and also the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh 3 Cr.M.P.No.1213/2017, decided on 7-3-2018.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned State counsel, would submit that the decision of this Court in Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav (supra) which was relied upon by the trial Court and the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar Jaiswal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, were referred to Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh ILR 2019 Chhattisgarh 1781 has clearly held that Section 6E of the Act of 1955 creates an absolute bar and puts embargo on the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to make any order with regard to interim custody of the vehicle to the persons entitled to possession thereof under Section 457 of the CrPC and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.