-^ Singie Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURJCGj Cr.M.P. No. |-c-;^~/2011 PETITIONER/ \v^ ...^--J yj"<^^""..,.- °" '^'^.y-"' ....•i-"/ . A^ Sandeep Singh aged about 32 years, S/o. Shri Mahendra Singh, Transporter, resident of near Manaw Mandir Chowk, \-^ -^^•^" Rajnandgaon, Municipal Corporation, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OP THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973. ^' ^^^. f£"^ • '^""%!> ,ff ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Cr.M.PNo. 157/2011 PETITIONER Sandeep Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.Cl Appearance: Shri P.K.C. Tiwari Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 19.8.2011) Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for modification of condition No.l tmposed under the impugned order dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P-1) in the matter of release of vehicle. 3. The facts necessaiy for decision of the present case are that the petitioner is owner oftanker No. C.G. -07 C-2142, which was duly purchased by him from previous registered owner on 23.9.2010. The tanker was seized on 23.10.2010 by fhe police station - Churiya in connection with the commission of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Acf') under Case No. No.248/10. The Addl. IV L __ ^:"..,,^?;'"aah<\ .•"' -»-'"'"~s. "'^' s s. '& '% 6 Ife®^"B 1 '^^] v16?-^' -2- ^ Collector, Rajnandgaon initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 6- A of the E.C. Act by issuing a show cause notice (Annexure P-2) on 3rd November, 2010. In the meantime, the police also filed charge sheet on 31st December, 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. On petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle, the confiscating authority passed an order on 24th January, 2011, directing release of the vehicle, however, subject to 5 conditions stated in the order. Aggrieved by condition No.l, which, according to the petitioner, is onerous and otherwise unwarranted, the petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, which was also not entertained on the ground that the same is not maintainable. An appeal was thereafter filed by the petitioner under Section 6- C of the E.C. Act, which has also not been entertained, stating that the appeal too is not maintainable. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of necessaiy direction for modiiication of the onerous and unwarranted condition imposed while ordering release of the tanker. 4. During the course of arguments, a question arose as to whether this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable against an order passed by a designated confiscating authority constituted under the E.C. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are various orders passed by this Court from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of interim custody of article/vehicle arising out the confiscation proceedings under various enactment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the this Court in the case of Poonaram Nagpure Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1, Vishal Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarha, Mahaiw Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.3 and order dated 18.3.2011 passed in the case of Bharat Maiher Vs. State of Chhattisgarh*. He submits that as this Court has been entertaining petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., m the matter of release of article/vehicle in confiscating proceedings, this petition may also be entertained and appropriate direction may be issued. 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State submits that this Court in the case of Janakram. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 7.12.2010 in Cr.M.P. No.823/10, has taken a view that the CoUector, in its capacity as confiscating authority luider the provisions of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the Excise Acf), though a Tribunal, cannot be said to be an inferior criminal Court wifhin the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 397 ofthe Cr.P.C. He submits that the principles on which this Court has held that a criminal revision is not inaintainable, are equally applicable in the present case also in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the scheme of the Excise Act and the i 2004 (3) M.P.H.T. 63 (CG) 2 2003 (1) C.G.L.J. 71 3 2007 (2) C.G.L.J.485 4Cr.M.P.No. 12/2011 ,'/ -4- E.C. Act in so far as confiscation is concerned is pari materia on the aspect relevant for consideration in the present case. Therefore, in the present case also, the order passed by the Confiscating Authority cannot be said to be an order passed by an inferior criminal Court and for that reason, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not exercisable, but the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. 7. Leamed senior counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court number of authorities, which shows that this Court has exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter of release of article or vehicle on superdnama arising out of order passed in confiscating proceedings under different enactments. As far as order passed in the case of Poonaram Magpure (supra) is concemed, it was neither raised nor decided as to whether proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable agarnst the order passed by the confiscating authority in the matter of confiscation proceedings drawn by the Collector and order of interiin custody passed. In the case of Vishal Agrawal (Supra) and Mahavir Prasad Agrawal (supra) also, this question was neither raised nor decided as to whether a petition under Section 482 would be maintainable against an order passed by the confiscating authority in confiscating proceedings under the Excise Act and Forest Act. 8. In the present case, the order against which this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed, has been passed by the -5- confiscating authority in confiscation proceedings drawn under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. By the impugned order, the Collector though has ordered for release of the vehicle, certain conditions have been imposed, which have been challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition. 9. The provision contained in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below: "482.Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to Umit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as inay be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Coiirt or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice." 10. Reading of the aforesaid provision shows that this Court would be exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or othenvise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the powers are exercisable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in relation to a proceeding under this Court or when an order was passed by a Court. While examining the maintainability of a criminal revision against an order of interim custody passed by the confiscatmg authority under the Excise Act, this Court in the case of Janakram (supra), held as under : /' -6- '^ 9. A reading of the provision contained in Section 397 ofthe Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Sessions Judge may call for and examine records of any proceeding before any inferior Crkninal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itsetf or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Under explanation to sub 8ection(1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., it has been provided that all Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercismg original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section (1) of Section 397 and also Section 398. 10. Under the statutory scheme of the Act as engrafted under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector has been empowered to order confiscation of intoxicant, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. where he is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 34 of the Act has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of offence exceeds twenty Sve bulk litres. While exercising his powers as Confiscating Authority under the aforesaid statutory scheme, the Collector cannot be said to be inferior Criminal Court within the meaning of sub Section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Though, the Collector whUe acting as a Confiscating Authority definitely exercises quasi judicial functions and in that sense, a tribunal, in the absence of there being any provision under the Act, the Collector as a Confiscating Authority cannot be said to be an ^s^. ^ s~ '^. ^y '^.I'h^^.,_,^-.^.' -7- inferior Criminal Court. Evidently, such confiscating authority constituted under the Act, is not a criminal Court constituted under Section 6 of the Cr.P.C. While exercising powers of Confiscating Authority and passing orders in such a capacity, the Collector cannot be said to be exercising any of the powers conferred on it under Cr.P.C., and therefore, it cannot be treated as inferior Crkninal Court. Similar is the view taken in the case of Mathura Prascid Rajgharia v. Kanailal SSultick and others, AIR 1968 Calcutta 170, Mammoo v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 Kerala 18 (Full Bench)." 11. The view which has been taken by this Court in the case of Janakram (supra) is that a confiscating authority acting under an enactment cannot be said to be a inferior criminal Court within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and further that the collector while acting as a confiscating authority, though exercises quasi-judicial functions and in that sense, a Tribunal, in the absence of there being any provision under the Act, the Collector as a confiscating authority cannot be said to be an inferior cruninal Court. The principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision also apply in the present case, because the scheme of confiscation under the E.C. Act is quite similar to that of under the provision of Excise Act. In the present case also, the Collector has been designated as confiscating authority empowered to confiscate food grains, audible oU etc. The Collector therefore while exercising its power as a confiscating authority, acts as quasi-judicial Tribunal. However, in the absence of there ,;daus>.«?.,. A.. ;?'iy being any provision under the said enactment, it cannot be said that while exercising its power, it acts as a Court. Therefore, I am ofthe opinion that the petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and therefore, the petitioner may approach the writ court or take recourse to any other remedy as may be available to him. under the law. 12. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 13. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the certified copy of the impugned orders dated 24.1.2011 (AnnexureP-1), dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-6) may be returned to the petitioner. 14. Certified copy of the orders as referred to above, shall be returned to the petitioner after retau-img photocopies of the same for the purpose of the record. — __ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Prav°en