Judgment:
ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 5.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur East, in a case registered under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and 407, 479 and 420 I.P.C. arising out of Muzaffarpur (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008, by which the petitioner's prayer for release of his truck bearing Registration No. BR-06G-1639 has been rejected.
2. The prosecution case as set out, inter alia, is that the truck in question was seized with 236 bags of rice. The rice bags were being unloaded from the truck in question some distance away from Kishore Petrol Pump, Ram Dayalu Nagar, Muzaffarpur. The driver and cleaner fled away. The rice bags found on the truck were packed in the bags with mark of F.C.I. It was suspected that the rice was being sold in black market which is punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The truck and the rice loaded thereupon were seized. The petitioner has claimed himself to be the owner of Truck No. BR-06G-1639 and is not concerned with the rice found loaded on his truck. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the truck on the ground that the truck was involved in committing black marketing of rice and further a confiscation proceeding before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, is going on in connection with this case.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of the truck in question. His truck is a public carrier vehicle. He is not concerned with the rice found loaded on his truck. He is not a business man. His truck was hired by others. He further submitted that he will abide with all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and he will co-operate in the criminal case as also in the confiscation proceeding. He further submitted that the truck in question has been kept in the Police Station under open sky and it is deteriorating day by day. It is causing an irreparable loss and injury. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the truck in question under seizure. He is ready to furnish security for release of the truck and further he will abide with the orders passed by the Collector in the confiscation proceeding. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 244 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court was of the view that keeping the public carrier vehicles under seizure is not in the interest of the society and it causes an irreparable loss and injury to the owner of the vehicle.
4. Learned Counsel for the State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the truck in question under seizure during the pendency of the criminal case and/or the confiscation proceeding. The principle of Supreme Court Judgment also applies in the present case. Therefore, I hereby direct the Collector, Muzaffarpur to release Truck No. BR-06G-1639 to the petitioner on being satisfied that the petitioner is the owner thereof and on an undertaking that the petitioner shall not sell, transfer, hypotheticate etc. the truck in question and he will produce the truck as and when order for the same is passed by the learned Collector. The learned Collector shall release the truck on the petitioner furnishing sufficient security other than cash or Bank guarantee to his satisfaction in Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008. The release will be subject to the result of the criminal case and/or confiscation proceeding.
6. The application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the observations and directions in the foregoing paragraphs.