IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1020 of 2011 Vimla Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 04/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. The instant petition happens to be under the garb of writ petition to release vehicle bearing Registration No. BR- 21C-7378 which was seized in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 132 of 2011 while transporting with the articles covered by Essential Commodities Act. While rejecting prayer, the learned CJM vide order dated 17.09.2011, took notice of initiation of confiscation proceeding by the District Magistrate as provided under Section 64 of the Essential Commodities Act which debars the Criminal Court on this score. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer, at the present moment, if allowed, is not going to finally adjudicate upon nor it will adversely affect upon the continuance of the confiscation proceeding nay the vehicle in question will be ousted from jurisdiction of the confiscation proceeding rather it will be merely a temporary arrangement so that individual loss as well as the national loss be 2 prevented on account of keeping the vehicle idle at the police station. On the other hand, the State opposed and submitted that once it has become the subject matter of confiscation proceeding legally recognizable, then under such event the prayer should be made before the competent authority with regard to temporary arrangement as pleaded and submitted. Furthermore, it has been submitted that for the present the order of CJM has been challenged which has not been on the merit of the case rather the prayer has been rejected on the point of jurisdiction on account of launching of confiscation proceeding. So, the writ petition in its present form does not seem to be maintainable. Admittedly, confiscation proceeding has been initiated. Petitioner has not prayed before the authority. Under such event, even taking into account the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner will serve no purpose as on account of initiation of confiscation proceeding, the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has been ousted. The aforesaid provision has not been found ultra vires as a result of which initiation of confiscation proceeding will overshadow the power of the Criminal Court to be exercised under Chapter- 3 XXXIV of the Cr.P.C.. The order under challenge happens to be an order passed under Chapter-XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any relevant law on this score which could support his plea. As such, I do not see any merit in the petition and is accordingly rejected. However, it will open for the petitioner to pray before the competent authority, if so advised, and the competent authority will decide the matter on priority basis. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)