Reserved on 08.10.2025 Delivered on 14.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4500 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 4.6.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No.168 of 2025 (State vs. Vikram Singh) as well as order dated 19.7.2025 passed by Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2025 (Vikram Singh vs. State of UP) filed under Section 6A of UP Essential Commodities and Food Act, 1955, Police Station-Pachokhara, District-Firozabad. 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on December 18, 2024, the District Agriculture Officer, Firozabad, adjudicated that on October 21, 2024, at approximately 12:00 a.m., a Max Pickup bearing Registration No.UP 80 GT 4290 (herein after referred to as ‘the vehicle’), loaded with Muriate of Potash fertilizer, was seized by the police team at Pachokhra and parked at the police station. Subsequently, during inspection, the quality of the 77 bags of fertilizer appeared questionable and sample of the fertilizer was sent to the laboratory for analysis at Lucknow. The police reported that no records regarding the fertilizer had been found nor has any person appeared at the Pachokhara police station to claim the fertilizer. Subsequently, on the basis of above report, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, action was taken to seize the vehicle along with 77 bags Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikram Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) of MOP K2O 60% (Muriate of Potash) of IPL Company. 4. The trial court issued notice to the revisionist Vikram Singh. The revisionist appeared and submitted his response, stating that he is a poor person and he is the owner of the Max Pickup vehicle. He had rented the pickup to Brijbabu for ₹700 per day. The fertilizer found in the vehicle did not belong to him and the same had not been recovered from him. The vehicle is deteriorating while parked at the police station and it is the sole source of income. Therefore, he prayed for release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further prays that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No.168 of 2025 (State vs. Vikram Singh) as well as order dated 19.7.2025 passed by Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2025 (Vikram Singh vs. State of UP) filed under Section 6A of UP Essential Commodities and Food Act, Police Station-Pachokhara, District-Firozabad, may kindly be partially modified to the extent that the revisionist be exempted for depositing of Rs.3,85,000/-. The condition No.1 imposed in the impugned order dated 4.6.2025 and consequentially confirmed by judgment and order dated 19.7.2025 be modified. The criminal revision may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the impugned orders dated 4.6.2025 and 19.7.2025 are in accordance with law, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat; (2002) 10 SCC 283 in paragraph-17 has held as under: “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 8. It is undisputed that the revisionist was not present at the time when the vehicle in question was seized. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that he is the registered owner and having all the valid document of the vehicle in question. He rented the said vehicle to Brijbabu at the rate CRLR No. 4500 of 2025 2 of Rs.700/- per day. Brijbabu neither paid the rent nor returned the vehicle, the revisionist inquired about his vehicle then it came to his knowledge that the said vehicle is lying at Police Station Pachokhara since 21.10.2024. The revisionist is not pressing any other relief except that the vehicle in question be released in his favour without depositing of Rs.3,85,000/-. 9. The Apex Court has held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) that the vehicle lying at the police station has to be released otherwise they become deteriorated and no fruitful purpose would be served by seizing and lying the vehicle for an indefinite period at police station. 10. In the consideration of all facts and circumstances, the conditions mentioned in the impugned order dated 4.6.2025 is hereby modified and deleted and consequential in the judgment and order dated 19.7.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2025. 11. The instant revision is partly allowed. 12. The vehicle Max Pickup bearing Registration No.UP 80 GT 4290 be released in favour of the revisionist after following and complying with the conditions No.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 4.6.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No.168 of 2025, Computerized Case No.D202501260000168 (State vs. Vikram Singh) under Section 6A of UP Essential Commodities and Food Act, 1955. October 14, 2025 LN Tripathi CRLR No. 4500 of 2025 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad