MUHAMMED RASSI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-36/A-3629. The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.771 of 2019 of the Thalayolapparambu Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 285 IPC, 9B(1)( a) of the Explosives Act , 1884 and 3 read with 7 of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955. The vehicle was seized on 6.7.2019 and on completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom on 3.10.2019. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking interim release of the vehicle. By Annexure A5 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the crime having been registered for offences, including those under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act'), the court does not have the power to order release of seized property as per the settled position of law. Thereupon the petitioner approached the District Collector seeking release of the vehicle and by Annexure A6 order, that application was also dismissed finding that the case was pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach that court. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

(2.) The only reason as to why the learned Magistrate refused to consider the application of the petitioner on merits is lack of jurisdiction in cases registered for offences under the Act. A similar issue was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of M.P and others v. Rameshwar Rathod [(1990) 4 SCC 21], the relevant portion of which reads as under;

(3.) This court in Biju Sebastian v. State of Kerala [ILR 2016 (3) Ker. 574] considered the issue elaborately and held that in the absence of proceedings for confiscation under Section 6A of the Act, jurisdiction of criminal courts is not ousted. As far as the instant case is concerned, the prosecution has no definite case that confiscation proceedings with respect to the petitioner's vehicle has been initiated, with notice as contemplated under Section 6B of the Act. In such circumstances, there is no ouster of jurisdiction as far as the Magistrate Court is concerned and hence, the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's application for lack of jurisdiction, cannot be sustained.