K P FRANCIS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 10th day of October, 1991 and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Balakrishnan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. R.M. Kannuppa Rajendean, Govt. Advocate (Cr1. side) on behalf of the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order: Petition under section 482. Criminal Procedure Code. praying for a direction to the first respondent to release the oil tanker bearing Registration No. TMT 8397 seized on 30-7-1991 by the respondent in Crime No. 234/91.

(2.) The petitioner's case is briefly as follows: He is the owner of the oil tanker bearing Registration No. TMT 8397. He is running it as a public carrier. The vehicle was at Nasarathpet before the mechanic shop. The respondent seized the vehicle and registered a case that there was 4000 liters of kerosene in it. Due to the leak age of Kerosene of another oil tanker of Andhra Pradesh Dealers, for temporary custody, 4000 litres of kerosene was unloaded and kept in the petitioners tanker to be delivered on the next day. The petitioner had no knowledge about it. The respondent has falsely registered the case against the petitioner on the allegation that kerosene was found in his tanker. The vehicle shall not be liable for confiscation as per section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The seizure is illegal. The vehicle is with the first respondent. Hence the petition for return of the vehicle to him.T

(3.) In the court below, the first respondent had resisted the claim on the following grounds: The petitioner is in the habit of collecting kerosene illicitly and selling the same in black market at a higher price. This respondent had sent a repot to the Deputy Commissioner (North) on 5-8-1991 for confiscation of the lorry with kerosene under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act and the same is pending. The Deputy Commissioner has power to confiscate the vehicle also under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act. As per clause 17 of TNK (R & T) Order, 1973, if a person is found in possession of kerosene exceeding 20 litres,-it is an offence. The first accused, the driver of the vehicle, was found in possession of 4000 litres in the lorry without valid licence. He accepted that his owner viz., the petitioner left the lorry and kerosene with him. The vehicle is liable for confiscation to the Government. The vehicle is used for an offence under Essential Commodities Act, the purpose of which is to prevent hoarding of essential commodities. If it is returned, the purpose would be defeated.