SHIV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 22.02.2019, in CNRMP No. 54010035372018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Umaria, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-18 GA 3548, seized in connection with Crime No. 311/2016 for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) Brief fact of the case are that the petitioner has filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Umaria contending that he is absolute owner of the aforesaid vehicle, on 22.09.2018 in the presence of SDO, Bandhavgarh, officer of Food Department has made search of aforesaid vehicle in the premises of K.K ware housing Corporation PG Godown, Bharola and 16 gunny begs of rice were found on the truck and the same was illegally kept by driver of vehicle namely Amit Kumar. The police has registered a case against the petitioner and driver of vehicle for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further contended that the petitioner is owner of a rice mill and he is in a contract with MP State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and doing the work of custom milling of paddy. He submits that according to him there is nothing remained in respect of rice to give the concerned authorities whereas article which has been seized by the authorities is rice, therefore, the case of police is false and doubtful. He further contended that he is owner of the aforesaid vehicle and it is standing position at Police Station Umaria. The petitioner prays that if the vehicle is kept in open for a long time, it will be subjected to the decay and rust. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned JMFC and being aggrieved, he has preferred a revision petition before Sessions Judge Umariya and same was also dismissed. Hence, this present petition is preferred for.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no roll in the aforesaid offence. Police has filed an objection in the supurdginama proceeding, stated that the vehicle of question is under confiscation proceeding before the Collector. But the information regarding confiscation has not been issued to the petitioner, only on this basis that the letter has been issued to the collector by the police, the learned JMFC has rejected the application. Further, the learned Revisional Court is also erred in passing the order dated 22.02.2019. The learned Revisional Court held that the aforesaid vehicle is being prosecuted under the E.C. Act and it is going to confiscate by District Magistrate Umaria, therefore, under Section 6(e) of the Act,1955 Magistrate has no authority to release the vehicle. The findings of the learned Revisional Court is not based upon the settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further he submits that in this case, opportunity of hearing was not provided by SHO to the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by the learned lower Court is not sustainable.