MOHD HANIF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these proceedings under section 482 CrPC, claims himself to be the owner of a motor truck No. USQ 9012. On 6-7-83 this truck leaded with paddy, Sarson and Arhar was seized by the police in connection with some alleged contravention of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. One Habib was the driver on the truck and two other persons, namely, Radhey Lal and Jai Mangal were also there. All these three persons were arrested and have since' been enlarged on bail. Mohammad Haneef applicant made an application before the Special Judge, Lucknow, for the release of the truck. THE learned Judge by his order dated 16-7-1983 rejected the application on the ground that proceedings about confiscation of the truck and for its release were all pending before the Collector, Lucknow, and consequently the applicant was advised to seek his remedy there and the application for release was rejected. THE applicant made another application before the [learned Special Judge which came up for hearing on 25-7-1983 when after hearing counsel for the parties the application was rejected on the ground that proceedings for release of the truck were already pending before the Collector and that even if Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act did not bar jurisdiction of the Special Judge, when the proceedings were already pending before the Collector it would be appropriate to obtain the order of release from that court rather than from the court of the Special Judge. It is against these two orders passed by the Special Judge that this petition has been filed with a prayer that the same may be quashed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also for the State. Admittedly the truck was seized along with certain essential commodities which were loaded thereon. The [proceedings for confiscation of essential commodities as also for the truck are pending before the Collector. These proceedings are under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the procedure laid down the owner or the person concerned will be given an opportunity to show cause before confiscation. This would be under section 6-B of the said Act. Thereafter an appeal is provided in section 6-C of the said Act which earlier lay before the judicial authority appointed by the State Government in that behalf but by an amendment of 1982 such appeal now lies to the State Government. The contention on behalf of the State is that the applicant should pursue his remedy before the Collector and if he feels aggrieved by the order passed he can prefer an appeal under section 6-C. It has also been contended on behalf of the State that section 6-E of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court or Tribunal in the matter. The counsel for the petitioner, however, maintains that section 6-E does not contemplate any proceedings about any truck or other vehicle seized in connection with transport of any essential commodity. Section 6-E deals with essential commodities only wiereas section 6-A refers both to essential commodities and the vehicle etc., used in carrying such essential commodity. The difference in the phraseology of the two sections, namely, 6-A and 6-E is material and meaning has to be given to the different terminology used in these two sections, If, therefore, section 6-A speaks both of essential commodities and vehicle cor animal etc., but section 6-E does not speak of vehicle or animal etc. used for carrying essential commodity then it cannot be said that section 6-E bars the: jurisdiction of any court otherwise competent to pass suitable orders with regard to the release of the vehicle. In a way, the learned Special Judge has also agreed with this interpretation but. has maintained that as proceedings for confiscation and release of truck are already pending before the Collector it would be appropriate that the matter is decided by the Collector himself and for this reason the learned Special Judge has refused to exercise the Jurisdiction under section 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16-7-1983 and 25-7-1983 are quashed. The matter shall be sent back to the court of the Special Judge, Lucknow, who will, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate orders on the application for release of the truck. Petition allowed.