AVNISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard SriPrakash Padia,learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is owner of the diesel to the extent of 12,000/- litres, which was loaded in a tanker being No. UHQ 0235. THE petitioner No. 1 claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the diesel from M/s. Baraut Service Station situated at Hapur Road, Baraut, District Baghpat Haraut Service Station is a dealer appointed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the lanker, in which diesel was loaded and possesses a valid licence to transport petroleum to the extent of 12,000/- litres, and the same is valid up to 11-2-2007. While the diesel was being carried in the tanker, an accident took place, whereby the First Information Report was lodged by D. S. O. Meerut at P. S. Kankar Khera and the loaded tanker was handed over to the Station Officer of concerned police station. Subsequently, an application was preferred on 19-12-2005 before the D. S. O with prayer to dispose of diesel in confirmation with the provisions of Section 6a of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE diesel was handed over in Supurdagi to Sri Himanshu Dwivedi, Regional Food Officer, Meerut on the next day i. e. on 20-12-2005. A copy of supurdagmama has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Notices were issued to the petitioners, who moved separate application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut First application was at the instance of the petitioner No. 2 Sandeep Kumar Jain on 30-1-2006 for releasing the tanker No. UHQ 0235 and the second application was moved on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Avnish Kumar on 27-3-2006 for releasing the diesel to the extent of 12,000/- litres, A report was called for regarding the genuineness and purity of high speed diesel oil. THE report was submitted by D. S. O. on 15-4-2006 in favour of the petitioners, confirming the registration, validity and licence of the tanker duly registered by the Regional Transport Officer. In spite of the aforesaid report, an order was passed on 29-4-2006 directing that the diesel loaded in the tanker be sold under the supervision of D. S. O. Meerut and money be deposited in the treasury. THE said order under Section 6-A of the Act was challenged in an appeal No. 177 of 2006 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15 Meerut, which was dismissed vide order dated 14- 8-2006, whereby the order dated 29-4-2006 stood continued. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has cited a number of decisions M/s. New J. T. C. Corporation, Delhi v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1999 U. P. Tax Cases page 1226, wherein the vehicle was released within six hours of the presentation of a certified copy of the order with a direction to the respondents to pay damages to the petitioners. Two other decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners are Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr. , 2000 (2) JIC 440 (SC) : (2001) 10 S. C. C. page 88, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC) : 2002 (10) S. C. C. page 283, wherein it was held that the powers under Section 451 Cr. P. C. should be exercised expeditiously and judicially. It would serve various purposes, namely: (1) owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (2) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody: (3) It the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and (4) this jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.