Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1044 of 2012 (5) dt.12-02-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1044 of 2012 ====================================================== Bikram Singh S/O Shri Viveka Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Manijhauli, P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Muzaffarpur 4. The Block Supply Officer, Muzafffarpur 5. The Officer-In-Charge, Motipur Police Station, Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur 6. The Investigating Officer, Motipur, P.S. Case No. 41/2012, P.S.- Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. AC to GP XI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 12-02-2013
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to GP XI for the respondents. 2. This criminal writ has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Confiscation case no. 32 of 2011/12 for confiscation of seized LPG gas tankers bearing registration nos. HR 74/1464 and HR 380/3056 with LPG gas cylinders loaded with the aforesaid two tankers under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Rule 3/ 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution ) Order, 2000 including order dated 10.3.2012 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and for quashing the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Muzaffarpur dismissing Criminal revision no. 63/2012 which had been filed against the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1044 of 2012 (5) dt.12-02-2013 2 order dated 17.3.2012 passed by learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur in Motipur P.S. case no. 41/2012 for release of the above stated tankers in favour of the petitioner. 3. Motipur P.S. case no. 41/ 2012 under sections 414, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered after seizure of the aforesaid tankers. The seizure was reported to the Collector, Muzaffarpur for initiation of proceeding under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and subsequently, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur initiated confiscation proceeding bearing Confiscation case no. 32 of 2011/12 (State vs. Gajendra Kumar and ors) and issued show cause notice. 4. In the meantime, a petition for release of the aforesaid tankers was filed before the court of learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur in Motipur P.S. case no. 41/ 2012 and learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur ordered to be released the aforesaid tankers in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2012 against which criminal revision bearing Criminal revision no. 63/2012 was filed before learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur and learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Muzaffarpur allowed the aforesaid revision petition setting aside the order dated 17.3.2012 passed by learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur and after that the petitioner filed this criminal writ before this court. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no violation of Rule 3/ 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 and, therefore, the very seizure of the aforesaid tankers was illegal and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur had no Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1044 of 2012 (5) dt.12-02-2013 3 jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceeding. It is further contended by him that the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur has simply issued show cause notice and, therefore, it would be deemed that up till now, confiscation proceeding has not been initiated and, therefore, criminal court had got jurisdiction to release the vehicle. In support of his contention, he citied a decision reported in 1976 BBCJ page 444 in which it has been held that wherein the Collector has issued show cause notice to the owner of the truck as to why it should not be confiscated, the Collector is not seized with the matter and court can order to release of the truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the very initiation of confiscation proceeding has been challenged by the petitioner before this court, this court has got jurisdiction to release the tankers in favour of the petitioner because the Apex court of this country has several times held that vehicle can not be detained in Thana premises for indefinite period. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1849. 6. On the other hand, learned AC to GP XI refuted the above stated submissions arguing that when confiscation proceeding has already been initiated, the criminal court has got no jurisdiction to pass an order on the point of release of the vehicle which has been seized under the provision of Essential Commodities Act. 7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has already filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for dropping the above stated confiscation proceeding but the matter is still pending and no order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur on the aforesaid petition. 8. After hearing the contentions of both the parties, in my view, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1044 of 2012 (5) dt.12-02-2013 4 learned AC to GP XI has rightly submitted that after initiation of confiscation proceeding, criminal court has got no jurisdiction to release the vehicle and therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions as well as facts and
Decision
circumstance of this case, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to dispose of the show cause as well as petition filed on behalf of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and furthermore, the petitioner may raise his plea before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur at the time of hearing of his show cause as well as petition. 9. It is made clear that if the petition as well as show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner are not decided within the above stated period, the matter would be viewed seriously. 10. Let this order be communicated to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Confiscation case no. 32 of 2011/12 through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Shahid/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)