MICHAEL RAJ Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to punish the respondent, Inspector of Police, CSCID, Thiruvallur Unit, for willful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court in Crl. R.C. No. 279 of 2014, dated 29.04.2014.

(2.) THE Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was directed against the order, dated 25.02.2014, made in C.M.P. No.812 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -I, Tiruvallur.

(3.) PROSECUTION resisted the petitioner's prayer contending that the accused is still absconding and steps are being taken for initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 6(A) of the E.C. Act. The Court below observed that in the light of the express bar under Section 6(E) of the E.C., Act, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to pass any orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release of the vehicle and any order passed releasing the vehicle would amount to impeding into the domain of the competent authority under the E.C., Act. By relying upon the decision of this Court in Cont. P. No. 1156 of 2006, dated 08.01.2010, it was pointed out that where seizure of vehicle involved in an offence of prohibition reported to the Magistrate, exercise of discretion and ordering of interim custody under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C., is not automatic. The Court observed that though the said decision was pertaining to an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Section 14 of the said Act, is analogous to Section 6 of the E.C., Act. Though the Court recorded the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was stolen and subsequently, alleged to have been used for transportation of PDS rice, declined to exercise discretion in the light of Section 6(E) of the E.C., Act. Accordingly, by order dated 25.02.2014, the petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred the Criminal Revision before this Court.