Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37570 Court No. - 30 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2902 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Laxmi Khadya Bhandar Thru. Its Prop. Shalini Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, challenging the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, District Unnao in Case No. 1146 of 2024 : State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Sundar Gupta, arising out of Case Crime No. 952 of 2023, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, whereby the application preferred by the applicant for release of fertilizer dated 12.08.2024 has been rejected. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the material brought on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2023, an inspection was conducted by the District Farming Officer, Unnao (opposite party no.3) at the shop of the applicant, namely, M/S Laxmi Khadya Bhandar situated at village Buddhi Kheda, Raepur, Police Station-Kotwali, district Unnao. At that time, brother of the applicant was present there. The opposite party no.3 had seized the fertilizer, which was lying in the aforesaid shop of the applicant, under the recovery memo, on the allegations that the said fertilizer was bogus. In this regard, an F.I.R. dated 19.11.2023, bearing Case Crime No. 952 of 2023, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was also registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, in which, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 09.03.2024 was filed by the Investigating Officer against the father of the applicant, namely, Shyam Sundar Gupta. 4. During pendency of the trial of Case Crime No. 952 of 2023, an application dated 12.08.2024 for release of the seized fertilizer was moved by the applicant before the trial Court on the ground that the seized fertilizer was purchased through authorized dealers on the genuine bills and there is no mixture in the said fertilizer. The trial Court had rejected the application for release vide order dated 04.10.2024 on the grounds that in view of Sections 6A and 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, the jurisdiction to seize, release or take any further action regarding essential commodities lies exclusively with the District Magistrate/Collector and jurisdiction of any other Court has been barred in such matters. 5. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds that no proceeding or notice as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was served upon the applicant. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the aspect of decay of fertilizer. 6. Counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Rameshwar Rathod : (1990) 4 SCC 21, argued that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts is not completely ousted in this matter. 7. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Rameshwar Rathod (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under :- “6. It was next contended by the respondent before the High Court that the Criminal Court was empowered under section 7 of the Act to confiscate the vehicle after due and proper inquiry and therefore the proceedings by the District Collector under section 6A and Section 6B of the Act should be quashed. Reliance was placed on several decisions and authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of State v. Abdul Rasheed, AIR [1967] Mysore 231, Sri Bharat Mahey & Ors. v. The State of U. P. & Ors., [1975] Crl. L.J 890 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge in State of M.P. v. Basant Kumar, [1972] JLJ Short Note No. 99. On a consideration of the relevant authorities, the High Court came to the conclu- sion that the criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in view of the enactment of the provisions of Section 6A as well as section 7 of the Act, it cannot be held that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the enactment of these provisions, it would be useless to hold that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting section 6A read with section 7 would be defeated. We are, however, unable to accept this contention because normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary criminal Court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new Act. In view of the language used and in the context in which this language has been used, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction.” 8. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that pending confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to release the seized items during pendency of trial. Thus, the trial Court committed illegality in rejecting the release application. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The order dated 04.10.2024 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao, to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Ajit Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench