S.P. CHAURASIA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a direction to the Respondents to deliver the possession of vehicle No MPA 9813 to the applicant.

(2.) ON February 5, 1976, according to the case of the prosecution, the aforesaid vehicle brought stones from Panna to village Karthal. After unloading the stones the vehicle loaded one bag rice fine quality 1 qtl., 14 bags of rice about 13 qtls., 8 bags grain barley, wheat 8 qtls., Matar 1 bag, Jwar one bag and was carrying the same from Karthal to Madhya Pradesh when it was apprehended near village Kalinda -Ka -Purwa at about 3.30 a.m. on 6 -2 -1976. The said village Kalinda -Ka -Purwa is situate at a distance of 11/2 kilometre from the U.P. -M. P. Border. These articles, as is the case of the prosecution, were being taken to Ajaigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the above which was seized along with the food grains mentioned above, the first information report was lodged in the police station Naraini at about 6.30 a.m. on 6th February, 1976. The applicant thereafter filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda for the release of the aforesaid truck. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date on the ground that as the vehicle was liable to be confiscated the same could not be released. The applicant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The revision was also rejected on 23 -2 -1976. After rejection of the aforesaid revision the present application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for quashing of the two orders and further for the release of the truck.

(3.) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction and power apart from Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act conferred on him under the Code of Criminal Procedure in exercise of which the vehicle could be released. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not bring any provision to my notice which entitled the Magistrate to pass any order for the release of the vehicle during the pendency of the investigation. In fact, the learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention in this behalf to Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure to my mind applies only to cases where the property is produced before any criminal Court during the pendency of any enquiry or trial and Section 452 applies to the stage when such an enquiry or trial is concluded. The only ether provision to which reference was made by the learned Counsel for the applicant was Section 457(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This section also can be pressed into service only when the enquiry or trial has concluded. The Magistrate has not been conferred any power by this section to direct for the release of the vehicle seized during the investigation of a criminal case. Accordingly the application made by the applicant for the release of the vehicle was misconceived and was rightly rejected. Assuming that the Magistrate had the power to grant the prayer made in the application for the release of the vehicle it may be stated that the present was not a fit case where such a power should have been exercised. The exercise of power by the Magistrate was likely to create a conflict, with the power which has been conferred by Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act and which is exercisable by the Collector in his administrative side. The consideration for passing an order under Section 6 -A may be different from those which are required to be taken into account by a Court of law in making a release. In this view of the matter the present application filed by the applicant in this Court is misconceived. He should have applied to the Collector under the Essential Commodities Act for the release of the vehicle. It will of course be upto the Collector to pass any order that he likes so to do on the facts and the circumstances of the present case.