State Of Maharashtra vs Sandip Vishnu Atole

Heard.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

The applicant has filed the present revision application challenging the order below Exh.01 dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby releasing the seized article i.e. 1168 sacks of rice weighing 584 quintals, 3 weighing machines and 2 Sewing machines on Supratnama in favour of the respondent hereby.

The First Information Report (FIR) came to be filed after conducting a raid and seizure of the rice, allegedly belonging to the public distribution system, being taken for the sale of the same in the black market. The raid was conducted on 28.09.2025, wherein three persons were found carrying the aforesaid rice in a truck, Ashok Leyland bearing No.GJ-03 CU-2282. Upon interrogation, it was informed that the aforesaid rice which was meant for the public distribution system was being taken in the truck upon instructions of the father of the respondent, Vishnu Atole, resident of Kurangad (Bk.). The FIR was thus registered and the entire rice along with three weighing machines and two sewing machines were seized. The empty gunny bags having the symbol of the government were also found. The sample of the rice was sent for chemical analysis. The respondent Sandip Atole has filed an application for release of the seized articles in his possession during the pendency of the trial by filing an application under Section 503 of BNSS. The said application came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

The State has challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.11.2025, mainly on the ground that when the confiscation proceedings were pending, the application for grant of possession of the seized articles in an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ought not to have been released in favour of the respondent.

Ms. Sapkal learned A.P.P. submits that the confiscation proceedings were underway and that the respondent was also served with a notice of the confiscation proceedings. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned trial Court which has passed the order releasing the seized articles in favour of the respondent therein, particularly after recording the fact that no confiscation proceeding had been commenced. The impugned order is therefore passed upon suppression of facts by the respondent herein. The respondent was very well aware of the pendency of the confiscation proceedings before the Collector, Buldhana. The confiscation order was also passed on 09.12.2025. Ms. Sapkal, learned A.P.P. therefore prays for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order in view of the confiscation proceedings passed by the learned Collector. Ms. Sapkal, learned A.P.P. further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another vs. Arvind Kumar and another^{11.(2012) 12 SCC 395} to submit that the question of ownership of the goods cannot be gone into by any other Court once the order of confiscation is passed. Ms. Sapkal, learned A.P.P. further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others^{22.2021 SCC OnLine ALL 53} to submit that the application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle is not maintainable during the pendency of confiscation proceedings.

Thus, relying upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and the observations made by the learned Collector in its confiscation order dated 09.12.2025. The learned A.P.P. submits that the respondent has deliberately suppressed the fact that the confiscation proceedings were already pending. As such, the application for release of the goods was itself not maintainable and the impugned order ignoring such a vital aspect of the matter is therefore required to be interfered with by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. This Court may therefore quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

As against this, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent is the owner of the said goods and the aforesaid articles are lying at the police station. The trial Court also considered that the respondent is not even an accused in the said crime and the respondent had placed on record the receipts showing the purchase of the rice from the different traders. The trial Court also took note of the fact that the confiscation proceedings were not pending, till the date of passing of the order, the aforesaid order was passed allowing the temporary custody of the goods which were perishable in nature, and the others goods were also directed to be handed over to the respondent during pendency of the trial. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained.

Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vitthal s/o Pandurang Navale ..vs.. State of Maharashtra^{33.2003 SCC OnLine Bom 605} to submit that merely because the FIR was registered, that by itself would not tantamount to commencement of confiscation proceedings in respect of the vehicle under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is submitted that unless a show cause notice is issued under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be commenced and consequently, there would be no bar of jurisdiction of the Court.

I have gone through the order of confiscation dated 09.12.2025. The perusal of the order dated 09.12.2025 shows that there is a finding recorded by the Collector that the notice dated 06.10.2025 issued by the Collector was served upon the respondent. However, the record was called and perused by this Court with the assistance of the learned A.P.P. The notice dated 06.10.2025 is placed on record which shows that the respondent was directed to remain present on 14.10.2025 at 11:00 a.m. However, the record does not show that the said notice was served upon the respondent. The original record received from the District Collector, Buldhana, is placed before this Court for perusal also shows that there is a Roznama on 14.10.2025 which only bears the signature of the Civil Supply Inspector, Jalgaon Jamod. The record does not show that the notice was ever served upon the respondent. The words “pending confiscation” is interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Section 6E of E.C. Act, 1955 reads as under:-

The plain reading of the provisions would indicate that under section 6-E of the Act what is required is not only a seizure but also the pendency of the confiscation proceedings under section 6-A before the Collector, before the bar of jurisdiction under said section can be invoked. If the seizure is “pending confiscation” under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, only then the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal or any other authority is ousted. Thus, if there is no confiscation proceeding pending under section 6-A before the Collector and/or under section 6-C before the State Government, then the Court or tribunal or any other authority can have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, etc. The jurisdiction of the Court or tribunal or any other authority stands ousted only if there is a confiscation proceeding pending before the Collector and/or the State Government either under section 6-A or 6-C. Otherwise, the Court or tribunal have a jurisdiction to dispose of the said property as per the procedure laid down.

Thus, in the absence of any notice being served upon the respondent, the learned trial Court has specifically recorded that the confiscation proceedings were yet to commence and therefore passed the order of release of the goods. The application was contested by the Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod. However, the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also does not appear to have pointed out to the Court about the issuance of any confiscation proceedings. The say of the prosecution dated 07.11.2025 is also annexed to the present application as Annexure-E, wherein there is no mention of any confiscation proceeding being undertaken or notice being issued by the Collector, Buldhana, which could be said to be the commencement of the confiscation proceedings. The entire record which is made available by the learned A.P.P. for perusal of this Court does not show any receipt of the purported notice dated 06.10.2025 which is also recorded to have been served in the confiscation order dated 09.12.2025.

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar that the confiscation proceeding record was deliberately created and manufactured by the State only with an intention to deny the benefits and circumvent the order of the learned trial Court dated 14.11.2025 which directed the release of the goods in favour of the present respondent, appears to be probable, at this stage. However these are prima facie observations. The same may not influence the trial Court.

Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as under :-

Perusal of Clause – (a), (b) and (c) of Section 6 B of the Act of 1955 shows that no order of confiscation be passed unless the owner is given a notice and is given reasonable opportunity. The aforesaid terminology used in Section 6-B, would show that unless the owner is given a notice, confiscation order can not be passed by the Collector.

This Court in the judgment, reported in Vitthal Navle (supra) has already held that the confiscation proceedings can be said to be commenced only upon issuance of show-cause-notice, as contemplated under Section 6 B of the Act of 1955. The provisions of Section 6 B of the Act of 1955 contemplates not only issuance of a show-cause-notice also would necessarily mean the service of the said notice upon the owner of the commodity seized under the Act of 1955.

As stated earlier, the respondent has failed to show that any such notice under Section 6B of the Act of 1955 was served upon the owner i.e. respondent herein, which can be said to be the confiscation proceedings were pending. In the absence of any record to show that the respondent was served with the show-cause-notice, the learned Trial Court was very well within its rights to record a finding that confiscation proceedings are not pending and hence, entertained the application for release of the goods seized on Supratnama. In my opinion therefore there was no error committed by the learned Trial Court in entertaining such application. The grievance raised by the petitioner/State of Maharashtra is misconceived and is thus liable to be rejected.

The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is on a premise that the confiscation proceedings were not pending. The impugned order also takes into consideration that the respondent has produced the purchase receipts of the articles seized. The application is under Section 503 of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid provision is made for granting custody of the articles seized during the pendency of the trial. The aforesaid custody is only an interim custody during the pendency of the trial considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered that the respondent herein is not an accused in the aforesaid crime and granted custody. The trial Court has also imposed a condition upon the respondent of giving an undertaking and executing a Supratnama bond in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The impugned order therefore is just and proper. It does not call for any interference of this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of substance and merit and is hereby dismissed.

Rule is discharged.