Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 192 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Kumar Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Advocate at length.
Order impugned in the instant revision is dated
06.1.2010, whereby the A.C.J.M. Court No. 1,
Bulandshahar has released the tanker in favour of
the revisionist but has refused to release the
commodity which was carried in tanker since the
revisionist could not substantiate his ownership
about the said commodity. The application was
moved under section 457 Cr.P.C. after tanker was
taken into custody under section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act. The application under section
457 Cr.P.C. for release of the tanker was moved
simultaneous prayer for release of commodity
carried in tanker was also made which was
previously rejected on 04.9.2009 by the Magistrate.
The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision
No. 329 of 2009 which was allowed by the Addl.
Sessions Judge Court No.6 Bulandshahar on
12.11.2009 with an observation that the Court of the
Magistrate was under obligation to release vehicle
and commodity both. After aforesaid order of the
revisional Court, the C.J.M. Bulandshahar once
again refused to grant release of the commodity
vide order dated 08.12.2009. The application was
moved before revisional Court on account of non-
compliance of his order by the C.J.M. This
application was disposed of on 10.12.2009 directing
the Magistrate to release the tanker and the
commodity. Consequent to the aforesaid order the
tanker has been released but the commodity has not
been released due to reason its ownership is not
fixed . Shri Sunil Kumar has laid stress on the
judgment of revisional court, whereby he has
discussed in detail regarding procedure of analysis,
the manner of taking sample and other questions
relating to the merits of the seizure of the article and
vehicle by the concerned authority.
I am of the considered view that section 457 Cr.P.C.
is only limited to the release of the property seized
by the police during enquiry or trial and it is a
discretion of the Magistrate to make an order if he
thinks fit regarding disposal of such property or
deliver of such property to a person entitled the
possession thereof. In the instant case the learned
Magistrate has specifically recorded a finding that
so for tanker is concerned, the ownership is
established and it is not disputed that the revisionist
is actual owner of the tanker and he has rightly
released the tanker. In so for as commodity is
concerned it has not been asserted that who is the
actual owner. Tanker was found filled with
petroleum products unattended. The procedure for
sampling as well as manner of seizure are provided
in the control order. Besides before release of an
essential commodity, confiscation proceedings are
provided in the Essential Commodities Act. The
revisional Court has evidently exceeded his
jurisdiction while issuing direction to the
Magistrate. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned order.
I dispose of this revision with direction that Tanker
shall be released in favour of the revisionist and so
far the commodity filled in the tanker shall be
stored somewhere else and necessary procedure
may be adopted for its disposal and sample
whatsoever in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010
S.A.A.Rizvi