Background of the Case
The present case involves the applicant, Pancham Murali,
who is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-51-G-0446.
This vehicle was seized by the police on allegations that it was transporting
90 bags of DAP fertilizer in violation of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
specifically Sections 3 and 7. Although a criminal case was registered (Crime
No. 306/2018), the applicant himself was not named as an accused. Following the
seizure, the applicant filed an application before the Collector seeking
release of the vehicle and the fertilizers under Sections 451 and 457 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Rejection of Application by the Collector and
Appellate Court
The Collector dismissed the application for release through
an order dated 22.06.2019. Alongside rejecting the application, the Collector
also passed an order of confiscation of both the vehicle and the fertilizers.
This composite order was challenged by the applicant by filing an appeal before
the Sessions Judge, Mandla. However, the Appellate Court upheld the Collector’s
decision and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 06.11.2019. Consequently,
the applicant approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing a Criminal
Revision petition against the orders of both the Collector and the Appellate
Court. Thus, it is clear that the truck owner (the applicant) challenged the
Collector’s order as well as the appellate order in the High Court.
Court’s Observations on Procedural
Irregularities
The High Court carefully examined the impugned orders and
observed that the Collector’s decision was fundamentally flawed. It was held
that the Collector was not competent to pass a composite order that
simultaneously dismissed the application for release and ordered confiscation
of the vehicle and fertilizers. The Court emphasized that the Collector’s
jurisdiction, when dealing with an application under Sections 451/457 of the
Cr.P.C., was limited to deciding whether the vehicle could be released on interim
custody or not. Confiscation, being a substantive order affecting property
rights, requires adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 6(A) of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Violation of Section 6(A) of the Essential
Commodities Act
The Court highlighted that Section 6(A) of the Essential
Commodities Act mandates certain safeguards before an order of confiscation can
be passed. Specifically, the law requires that the owner of any vehicle
involved in the transportation of seized essential commodities must be given
prior notice and an opportunity to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. This
fine cannot exceed the market value of the vehicle at the time of seizure. In
the present case, the Court found that the Collector failed to issue any such
notice or offer the option to pay the fine, thereby violating the statutory
mandate. The order of confiscation passed by the Collector without compliance
of these mandatory provisions was therefore held to be illegal and a result of
non-application of mind.
Applicant’s Status and Entitlement to Vehicle
Release
The High Court noted that the applicant was not named as an
accused in the criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, and he
was the undisputed owner of the seized vehicle. No other person claimed the
vehicle or fertilizers during the proceedings. Considering these facts and the
absence of any conviction in the case, the Court held that the refusal to
release the vehicle to its lawful owner was unjustified. The Court emphasized
that mere ownership entitles the applicant to seek release of the vehicle,
especially when the procedural safeguards for confiscation were not followed.
Directions for Release of Vehicle on
Supurdginama
Having found the impugned orders unsustainable, the High
Court allowed the Criminal Revision petition and set aside both the order of
the Collector dated 22.06.2019 and the Appellate Court order dated 06.11.2019.
The Court directed the release of the vehicle to the applicant on
“supurdginama” (interim custody) subject to several conditions designed to
safeguard the interests of the prosecution and ensure the vehicle’s
availability during the trial. The applicant was required to furnish a
supurdginama bond and surety, each worth ₹5,00,000,
to the satisfaction of the trial court. Further, the applicant had to provide
undertakings that he would produce the vehicle as and when required, would not
alienate or use the vehicle for unlawful purposes, would not alter the vehicle’s machinery or nature, and
would ensure the vehicle is not used in any further offences or anti-social
activities. The Court also made it clear that if a confiscation order is
ultimately passed by the competent authority, the applicant must produce the vehicle
accordingly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the High Court found the Collector’s order
of confiscation illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural
safeguards in the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant, as the lawful owner
and a non-accused person in the criminal case, was entitled to the interim
release of the vehicle pending trial. The Court allowed the revision petition,
quashed the earlier orders, and granted release on strict conditions, leaving
open the possibility of confiscation if legally warranted after following due
process.