Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 1997. Case: State of Maharashtra Vs Manishkumar. Bombay High Court

Case NumberCriminal Revision Application No. 22 of 1997
Party NameState of Maharashtra Vs Manishkumar
CounselFor Applicant: S. B. Wahane, Additional Public Prosecutor and For Respondents: P. P. Kotwal, Adv.
JudgesS. B. Mhase, J.
IssueEssential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) - Sections 6E, 6A, 6C
Citation1998 CriLJ 303
Judgement DateAugust 07, 1997
CourtBombay High Court

Order:

  1. The State has challenged the order dated 7th November, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, allowing Misc. Criminal Application No. 32 of 1996 preferred by the respondent under Section 457 read with Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting the possession of 39 gas cylinders filled in with gas and 21 empty gas cylinders, which were seized by the Police on 1st October, 1996 in Crime No. 290 of 1996 registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant is a dealer of Handi Gas. However, those cylinders were not stored at a storage point to be fixed under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation and Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 and thus there was violation of Section 3, which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial is pending. However, pending trial, the above application was submitted and the Court allowed the said application.

  2. The only question of law raised by Shri Wahane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant/ State, is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, should not have allowed the application under Section 457 read with Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because in the matter of essential commodity, when the said commodity is seized, it is the Collector, who is supposed to deal with and dispose of the said commodity in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6-A to 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is an express bar to the Court to exercise the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the provisions of Sections 6-A to 6-E of the said Act and, therefore, he submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

  3. Shri Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, is in accordance with law and the Court has relied on the ratio as laid down in the case of State of M. P. v. Rameshwar Rathod, reported in 1990 Cri LJ 1756 (AIR 1990 SC 1849) (SC) and, therefore, there is no need to interfere and/or quash and set aside the impugned order.

  4. It is pertinent to note that the police have seized the gas cylinders as referred to above on 1st October, 1996. The petitioner have submitted application on 19-10-1996 for getting the 60 Cylinders on supratnama. Notice was issued to the State on 19th October, 1996. On 4th...

To continue reading

Request your trial