RANJITA RANI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is said to be the registered owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No. OR 05 M 0561. She Challenges the legality of the order dated 15.07.2004 of the J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 631 of 2004 rejecting her petition filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment dated 19.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge I/C, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2004 confirming the aforesaid order of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack.

(2.) ON 01.07.2004 near the O.T.M. Bazar of Coudwar the Tangi Police found the aforesaid vehicle transporting Aluminium Conductors weighing 3.10 quintals in violation of the provisions of the Orissa Electric Supply -Line Material (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The materials were seized and Tangi P.S. Case No. 88 of 2004 under Sections 379, 411 and 34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Act corresponding to the G.R. Case, referred to above, was initiated. Subsequently, on 01.07.2004 the vehicle in question was also seized. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in the said G.R. Case for release of the vehicle in her zima. The learned J.M.F.C. after perusing the F.I.R. and other relevant record by his order dated 15.07.2004 rejected the prayer on the ground that since in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the Authorized Officer is empowered to initiate a confiscation proceeding, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2004. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate holding that Section 6(3) of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to deal with the seized property as it provides that the police has no other option than to make over the property seized to the Authorised Officer notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Authorised Officer alone is competent to deal with the application for release of the seized property.

(3.) MR . Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that in view of the specific provisions in the Act, more particularly, Sections 6, 7 and 9 thereof, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court must be held to be excluded in relation to matters for which provisions have been made in the special statute itself.