SARUN KUMAR C K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle and he claims to have purchased it on 02.12.2010. It is alleged that while the said vehicle was illicitly transporting ration rice, it was seized by the Chalakkudy Police and a case was registered as Crime No.1676 of 2010 for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, "the Act"). The vehicle was also taken to custody. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2011 for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate passed Annexure-A6 order allowing the application but imposing certain conditions. Petitioner, notwithstanding that the order went in his favour is aggrieved as the order stands in the way the officer authorised under Act initiating steps for confiscation and seeks appropriate reliefs from that authority. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) In view of Section 6E of the Act, whenever any essential commodity 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 and pending confiscation under Section 6A of the Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force no Court, Tribunal or Authority shall have jurisdiction to make any order for possession, delivery, disposal, etc. of such essential commodity, vehicle, etc.

(3.) Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and another ((1990 3 SCC 549) it has been held in State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana (AIR 2004 SC 1851 (paragraph 39) that once confiscation proceeding is initiated jurisdiction of the criminal court is ousted.