The aforesaid analysis of statutory provisions and the principles of
law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above
referred cases (supra) would show that whenever any essential
commodity is seized, under an order made in exercise of power conferred
by Section 3 of EC Act, in relation thereto no court, tribunal or authority
shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distinction of such essential commodity save
and except the Collector pending confiscation under Section 6A of the EC
Act, 1955, therefore, in the matter of making orders with regard to
disposal of seized vehicle in pursuance to order made under Section 3 of
the Act, only the Collector or judicial authority, as the case may be, shall
have any jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the disposal of that
vehicle/essential commodity seized in pursuance of order made under
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 and jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant
custody under Section 457 is expressly barred.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Cr.M.P. NO . 1068 of 2014
PETITIONER Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav
Versus
RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh
(Passed on 17. 12.2014)
Citation;2015 CRLJ 961 Chhatis
(1) The central legal issue that falls for consideration in this petition is
whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to grant custody of vehicle seized for violation of an
order made in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 ?
(2) The petitioner is registered owner of four wheeler bearing registration
No. CG-04-J.D.-2238. The said vehicle has been seized by the Police
Station – Karora, District Raipur in connection with Crime No. 298/13 for
commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(henceforth ‘EC Act, 1955’) as the said vehicle was found involved in
transporting the rice reserved for the poor and needy people under the
Public Distribution System.
1
(3) The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, made an
application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(henceforth ‘the Code’) stating inter alia that he, being the registered
owner of the vehicle, is entitled for custody of the vehicle in question as it
is lying unused in the Police Station. The said application was opposed
by the Public Prosecutor.
(4) Learned trial Magistrate, by its order dated 16.09.2014, rejected the
said application holding inter alia that the said vehicle is subject to
confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 and,
therefore, interim custody of said vehicle cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
(5) Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate,
petitioner preferred revision before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur.
(6) The revisional Court, by its impugned order dated 22nd November,
2014, concurred with the findings recorded by trial Magistrate holding that
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
making order with regard to the disposal of the property/vehicle as the
said vehicle was found involved in commission of offences under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and it has been seized
accordingly.
(7) Appearing for the applicant, Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel would
submit that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle is
entitled for custody of the vehicle and Section 6E of the EC Act would not
come in the way to get interim custody to him as the proceeding under
section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 has not been initiated as only intimation of
2
the seizure of the vehicle has been sent to learned Magistrate and,
therefore, the applicant is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle in
question under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(8) Appearing for the State, Shri Neeraj Jain, learned Govt. Advocate
would submit that the proceeding for confiscation has already been
initiated and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of
the vehicle in question.
(9) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
considered the rival submissions made therein with utmost
circumspection.
(10) In order to consider to rival submission made at bar, questioning
the impugned order, it would be proper to have quick survey of the
relevant statutory provisions: Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 provides
confiscation of essential commodities including vehicle etc; Section 6B of
the EC Act, 1955 provides for issuance of show cause notice before
confiscation; Section 6Cof the Act, 1955 provides appeal against the
order of confiscation; and Section 6E of the Act, 1955 in relation to the
bar of the jurisdiction in certain cases. Section 6E of the Act states as
under:-
“6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.- Whenever
any essential commodities is seized in pursuance of
an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or
any package, covering or receptacle in which such
essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance used in carrying is found,
or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance
used in carrying such essential commodity is seized
pending confiscation under Section 6A, the Collector,
3
or, as the case may be, [the judicial authority
appointed under section 6C] shall have, and,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other law for the time being in force, [any other
court, tribunal or authority] shall not have, jurisdiction
to make orders with regard to the possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such
essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle,
animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.”
(11) Section 6E was inserted in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by
the Amendment Act No. 92 of 1976 with effect from 2.9.1976.
(12) Section 6E is disabling provision stating that notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in
force, any other Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to
make orders with regard to the possession, disposal, release of such
vehicle or other conveyance.
(13) Thus, in the matter of order of confiscation of the essential
commodity except the Collector and the judicial authority as the case may
be, the jurisdiction of the other Court, Tribunal or other authority is
expressly barred to make any order in view of specific bar engrafted
under Section 6E of the Act, 1955.
(14) The bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 6E of the Act, 1955
came to be considered before the Supreme Court in case of Shambhu
Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal and another1, in which their
Lordships has held that Section 6-E was enacted to debar courts from
making any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or
distribution of essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made
1 (1990) 3 SCC 549
4
under Section 3 of the EC Act, 1955. Relevant paragraph of the report
states as under:-
“ It is obvious on a plain reading of this provision
that the same was brought on the statute book with a
view to debarring the courts from making any order
with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or
distribution of any essential commodity seized under
an order made under Section 3 of the Act. Section 7
prescribes the penalties for the contravention of any
order made under Section 3 and provides for the
forfeiture of the essential commodity to the
government and for the forfeiture of the essential
commodity to the government and for the forfeiture
of any animal, vehicle or other conveyance used in
carrying the said essential commodity, if the court so
orders.”
(15) It has further been held in later part of the above referred judgment
as under:-
“6……….It provides that whenever any essential
commodity is seized under an order made in
exercise of power conferred by Section 3 in relation
thereto no court, tribunal or other authority shall have
jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the
possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution
of such essential commodity save and except the
Collector pending confiscation under Section 6-A, or
the State Government concerned pending
confiscation under Section 6-C.”
8……… And now to the structural setting and
context in which the word ‘release’ is used in Section
6-E. While debarring courts, tribunals and other
authorities from exercising power in relation to the
seized commodity, power is conferred on the
Collector or the State Government concerned under
Section 6-C, to make orders with regard to the
possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution
of such commodity, etc. This power can be exercised
pending confiscation. The power conferred by this
section is unqualified. The word ‘release’ is preceded
by the words ‘possession, delivery and disposal’ and
followed by the word ‘distribution’. The setting and
context in which the word ‘release’ is used makes it
clear that it is not used in the sense of ‘return’. In the
first place as pointed out earlier it would completely
defeat the purpose and object of the Act if the
essential commodity seized for suspected
5
contravention of the order made under Section 3 is
returned to the owner or person from whom it was
seized even before the confiscation proceeding were
completed. Such an intention cannot be ascribed to
the legislature. Secondly, it is not possible to believe
that the legislature would confer unqualified and
unrestricted power to return the essential commodity
to the owner or the person from whose possession it
was seized before a decision whether or not to
confiscate the same is taken. As the section stands,
if the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the
appellant is accepted, it would be permissible to the
Collector to return or restore the commodity without
imposing any condition, pending confiscation
proceedings.”
(16) Finally, concluding paragraph of the above referred judgment
states as under:-
“……….It seems to us that Section 6-E is intended to
serve a dual purpose, namely (i) to prevent
interference by courts, etc., and (ii) to effectuate the
sale of the essential commodity under sub-section
(2) and the return of the animal, vehicle, etc., under
the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
6-A.”
(17) The above-stated judgment was followed and approved by their
Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Oma Ram v. State of Rajasthan
and others2, in which it has clearly been held that Section 6E of the Act
deals with bar of jurisdiction of courts in certain cases except the
Collector or the State Government, all other authorities including
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant relief against seizure under Section
457 of the Code. Paragraph 17 of the report states as under:-
“17. Certain provisions of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 have relevance. Section 6-A deals with
confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds and
edible oils. Section 6-B deals with issue of showcause
notice before confiscation of food grains, etc.
Section 6-E deals with bar of jurisdiction in certain
case. Section 6-E has been substituted to provide
that except the Collector or the State Government,
all other authorities, judicial or otherwise, would be
debarred from making any order with regard to the
2 AIR 2008 SC (supp) 1844
6
possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any
essential commodity, seized in pursuance of an
order made under Section 3. Thus a Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to grant relief against seizure under
Section 457 Cr.P.C.”
(18) The decision rendered in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala (supra) & Oma
Ram (supra) has been reiterated and followed by their Lordships of
Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar & another Vs. Arvind Kumar
and anr.3, holding that the release order passed in favour of the
respondents therein without regards to Section 6A and Section 6E of the
EC Act, 1955 is improper.
(19) In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender4, their Lordships of Supreme
Court, while considering the bar enacted by Section 33 of the Delhi
Excise Act, 2009, has held that in a case where the Authorized Officer is
empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that
the offence under the Act has been committed thereof, the general power
vested in the Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the
seized material under the Code of Criminal Procedure has to give way.
(20) The aforesaid analysis of statutory provisions and the principles of
law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above
referred cases (supra) would show that whenever any essential
commodity is seized, under an order made in exercise of power conferred
by Section 3 of EC Act, in relation thereto no court, tribunal or authority
shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distinction of such essential commodity save
and except the Collector pending confiscation under Section 6A of the EC
Act, 1955, therefore, in the matter of making orders with regard to
3 AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 8
4 JT 2014 (1) SC 274
7
disposal of seized vehicle in pursuance to order made under Section 3 of
the Act, only the Collector or judicial authority, as the case may be, shall
have any jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the disposal of that
vehicle/essential commodity seized in pursuance of order made under
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 and jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant
custody under Section 457 is expressly barred.
(21) Revering back to the facts of the case, it would appear that learned
Magistrate has rejected the application filed under Section 457 of the
Code holding that vehicle in question has been seized in connection with
violation of order under the provisions of Section 3 of the EC Act, 1955;
and the revision being filed, the learned Additional District Judge has
rightly observed that by virtue of provisions contained in Section 6E of the
EC Act, 1955, learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction with regard to
custody of the said vehicle as pending confiscation under Section 6E of
the EC Act, 1955.
(22) Resultantly, the order passed by the Magistrate as affirmed by the
learned Sessions Judge holding that jurisdiction of the Magistrate under
Section 6E of the Act is barred in accordance with law, does not call for
any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code.
(23) As a fall out and the consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition is held to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
Judge
D/-
8
HEAD NOTE
English
(1) Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle
seized for commission of offence u/S 3/7 of the EC Act, 1955.
Print Page
law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above
referred cases (supra) would show that whenever any essential
commodity is seized, under an order made in exercise of power conferred
by Section 3 of EC Act, in relation thereto no court, tribunal or authority
shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distinction of such essential commodity save
and except the Collector pending confiscation under Section 6A of the EC
Act, 1955, therefore, in the matter of making orders with regard to
disposal of seized vehicle in pursuance to order made under Section 3 of
the Act, only the Collector or judicial authority, as the case may be, shall
have any jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the disposal of that
vehicle/essential commodity seized in pursuance of order made under
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 and jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant
custody under Section 457 is expressly barred.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Cr.M.P. NO . 1068 of 2014
PETITIONER Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav
Versus
RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh
(Passed on 17. 12.2014)
Citation;2015 CRLJ 961 Chhatis
(1) The central legal issue that falls for consideration in this petition is
whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to grant custody of vehicle seized for violation of an
order made in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 ?
(2) The petitioner is registered owner of four wheeler bearing registration
No. CG-04-J.D.-2238. The said vehicle has been seized by the Police
Station – Karora, District Raipur in connection with Crime No. 298/13 for
commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(henceforth ‘EC Act, 1955’) as the said vehicle was found involved in
transporting the rice reserved for the poor and needy people under the
Public Distribution System.
1
(3) The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, made an
application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(henceforth ‘the Code’) stating inter alia that he, being the registered
owner of the vehicle, is entitled for custody of the vehicle in question as it
is lying unused in the Police Station. The said application was opposed
by the Public Prosecutor.
(4) Learned trial Magistrate, by its order dated 16.09.2014, rejected the
said application holding inter alia that the said vehicle is subject to
confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 and,
therefore, interim custody of said vehicle cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
(5) Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate,
petitioner preferred revision before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur.
(6) The revisional Court, by its impugned order dated 22nd November,
2014, concurred with the findings recorded by trial Magistrate holding that
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
making order with regard to the disposal of the property/vehicle as the
said vehicle was found involved in commission of offences under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and it has been seized
accordingly.
(7) Appearing for the applicant, Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel would
submit that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle is
entitled for custody of the vehicle and Section 6E of the EC Act would not
come in the way to get interim custody to him as the proceeding under
section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 has not been initiated as only intimation of
2
the seizure of the vehicle has been sent to learned Magistrate and,
therefore, the applicant is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle in
question under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(8) Appearing for the State, Shri Neeraj Jain, learned Govt. Advocate
would submit that the proceeding for confiscation has already been
initiated and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of
the vehicle in question.
(9) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
considered the rival submissions made therein with utmost
circumspection.
(10) In order to consider to rival submission made at bar, questioning
the impugned order, it would be proper to have quick survey of the
relevant statutory provisions: Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 provides
confiscation of essential commodities including vehicle etc; Section 6B of
the EC Act, 1955 provides for issuance of show cause notice before
confiscation; Section 6Cof the Act, 1955 provides appeal against the
order of confiscation; and Section 6E of the Act, 1955 in relation to the
bar of the jurisdiction in certain cases. Section 6E of the Act states as
under:-
“6E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.- Whenever
any essential commodities is seized in pursuance of
an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or
any package, covering or receptacle in which such
essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle,
vessel or other conveyance used in carrying is found,
or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance
used in carrying such essential commodity is seized
pending confiscation under Section 6A, the Collector,
3
or, as the case may be, [the judicial authority
appointed under section 6C] shall have, and,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other law for the time being in force, [any other
court, tribunal or authority] shall not have, jurisdiction
to make orders with regard to the possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such
essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle,
animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.”
(11) Section 6E was inserted in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by
the Amendment Act No. 92 of 1976 with effect from 2.9.1976.
(12) Section 6E is disabling provision stating that notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in
force, any other Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to
make orders with regard to the possession, disposal, release of such
vehicle or other conveyance.
(13) Thus, in the matter of order of confiscation of the essential
commodity except the Collector and the judicial authority as the case may
be, the jurisdiction of the other Court, Tribunal or other authority is
expressly barred to make any order in view of specific bar engrafted
under Section 6E of the Act, 1955.
(14) The bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 6E of the Act, 1955
came to be considered before the Supreme Court in case of Shambhu
Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal and another1, in which their
Lordships has held that Section 6-E was enacted to debar courts from
making any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or
distribution of essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made
1 (1990) 3 SCC 549
4
under Section 3 of the EC Act, 1955. Relevant paragraph of the report
states as under:-
“ It is obvious on a plain reading of this provision
that the same was brought on the statute book with a
view to debarring the courts from making any order
with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or
distribution of any essential commodity seized under
an order made under Section 3 of the Act. Section 7
prescribes the penalties for the contravention of any
order made under Section 3 and provides for the
forfeiture of the essential commodity to the
government and for the forfeiture of the essential
commodity to the government and for the forfeiture
of any animal, vehicle or other conveyance used in
carrying the said essential commodity, if the court so
orders.”
(15) It has further been held in later part of the above referred judgment
as under:-
“6……….It provides that whenever any essential
commodity is seized under an order made in
exercise of power conferred by Section 3 in relation
thereto no court, tribunal or other authority shall have
jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the
possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution
of such essential commodity save and except the
Collector pending confiscation under Section 6-A, or
the State Government concerned pending
confiscation under Section 6-C.”
8……… And now to the structural setting and
context in which the word ‘release’ is used in Section
6-E. While debarring courts, tribunals and other
authorities from exercising power in relation to the
seized commodity, power is conferred on the
Collector or the State Government concerned under
Section 6-C, to make orders with regard to the
possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution
of such commodity, etc. This power can be exercised
pending confiscation. The power conferred by this
section is unqualified. The word ‘release’ is preceded
by the words ‘possession, delivery and disposal’ and
followed by the word ‘distribution’. The setting and
context in which the word ‘release’ is used makes it
clear that it is not used in the sense of ‘return’. In the
first place as pointed out earlier it would completely
defeat the purpose and object of the Act if the
essential commodity seized for suspected
5
contravention of the order made under Section 3 is
returned to the owner or person from whom it was
seized even before the confiscation proceeding were
completed. Such an intention cannot be ascribed to
the legislature. Secondly, it is not possible to believe
that the legislature would confer unqualified and
unrestricted power to return the essential commodity
to the owner or the person from whose possession it
was seized before a decision whether or not to
confiscate the same is taken. As the section stands,
if the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the
appellant is accepted, it would be permissible to the
Collector to return or restore the commodity without
imposing any condition, pending confiscation
proceedings.”
(16) Finally, concluding paragraph of the above referred judgment
states as under:-
“……….It seems to us that Section 6-E is intended to
serve a dual purpose, namely (i) to prevent
interference by courts, etc., and (ii) to effectuate the
sale of the essential commodity under sub-section
(2) and the return of the animal, vehicle, etc., under
the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
6-A.”
(17) The above-stated judgment was followed and approved by their
Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Oma Ram v. State of Rajasthan
and others2, in which it has clearly been held that Section 6E of the Act
deals with bar of jurisdiction of courts in certain cases except the
Collector or the State Government, all other authorities including
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant relief against seizure under Section
457 of the Code. Paragraph 17 of the report states as under:-
“17. Certain provisions of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 have relevance. Section 6-A deals with
confiscation of food grains, edible oil seeds and
edible oils. Section 6-B deals with issue of showcause
notice before confiscation of food grains, etc.
Section 6-E deals with bar of jurisdiction in certain
case. Section 6-E has been substituted to provide
that except the Collector or the State Government,
all other authorities, judicial or otherwise, would be
debarred from making any order with regard to the
2 AIR 2008 SC (supp) 1844
6
possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any
essential commodity, seized in pursuance of an
order made under Section 3. Thus a Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to grant relief against seizure under
Section 457 Cr.P.C.”
(18) The decision rendered in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala (supra) & Oma
Ram (supra) has been reiterated and followed by their Lordships of
Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar & another Vs. Arvind Kumar
and anr.3, holding that the release order passed in favour of the
respondents therein without regards to Section 6A and Section 6E of the
EC Act, 1955 is improper.
(19) In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender4, their Lordships of Supreme
Court, while considering the bar enacted by Section 33 of the Delhi
Excise Act, 2009, has held that in a case where the Authorized Officer is
empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that
the offence under the Act has been committed thereof, the general power
vested in the Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the
seized material under the Code of Criminal Procedure has to give way.
(20) The aforesaid analysis of statutory provisions and the principles of
law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above
referred cases (supra) would show that whenever any essential
commodity is seized, under an order made in exercise of power conferred
by Section 3 of EC Act, in relation thereto no court, tribunal or authority
shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distinction of such essential commodity save
and except the Collector pending confiscation under Section 6A of the EC
Act, 1955, therefore, in the matter of making orders with regard to
3 AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 8
4 JT 2014 (1) SC 274
7
disposal of seized vehicle in pursuance to order made under Section 3 of
the Act, only the Collector or judicial authority, as the case may be, shall
have any jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the disposal of that
vehicle/essential commodity seized in pursuance of order made under
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 and jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant
custody under Section 457 is expressly barred.
(21) Revering back to the facts of the case, it would appear that learned
Magistrate has rejected the application filed under Section 457 of the
Code holding that vehicle in question has been seized in connection with
violation of order under the provisions of Section 3 of the EC Act, 1955;
and the revision being filed, the learned Additional District Judge has
rightly observed that by virtue of provisions contained in Section 6E of the
EC Act, 1955, learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction with regard to
custody of the said vehicle as pending confiscation under Section 6E of
the EC Act, 1955.
(22) Resultantly, the order passed by the Magistrate as affirmed by the
learned Sessions Judge holding that jurisdiction of the Magistrate under
Section 6E of the Act is barred in accordance with law, does not call for
any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code.
(23) As a fall out and the consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition is held to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
Judge
D/-
8
HEAD NOTE
English
(1) Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant custody of the vehicle
seized for commission of offence u/S 3/7 of the EC Act, 1955.
No comments:
Post a Comment