EC Act bar does not automatically block release of seized vehicle, Calcutta High Court rules, absent proof confiscation proceedings are pending

The petitioner, the registered owner of vehicle WB-23F 8534, sought its return after it was seized during investigation into the alleged disappearance of 613 sacks of corn.

The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act) provisions were added to the case on 25 June 2025.

The Magistrate rejected the release application on the ground that the EC Act barred release.

The petitioner was not named as an accused, and the investigation was complete; the State asserted that confiscation proceedings had been initiated, but the case diary contained no supporting document or notice to the petitioner

1. Whether Section 6E of the EC Act barred the criminal court from considering interim release of the seized vehicle in the circumstances of this case

2. Whether the vehicle could be released to its registered owner during the pendency of the criminal case, and, if so, on what conditions

Section 6E of the EC Act excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary courts over possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of a seized essential commodity or related conveyance when the statutory conditions for its operation are met, including seizure in the circumstances specified by the provision and a report of seizure to the Collector; the provision operates alongside Sections 6A and 6B, which govern confiscation and notice

Because Section 6E ousts ordinary criminal-court jurisdiction, its conditions must be established and the provision construed strictly

Under *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, seized vehicles should not be left unused for an extended period, and courts may order their interim release subject to safeguards

The court also relied on *Raju Singha v. State of West Bengal* and the authorities discussed there concerning interim custody of seized vehicles, including vehicles potentially liable to confiscation

The vehicle was seized on 20 May 2025 during investigation of alleged theft, misappropriation and cheating; the EC Act provisions were added later, on 25 June 2025.

The record disclosed neither an order under Section 3 nor documentary proof that confiscation proceedings had commenced or that the statutory basis for Section 6E’s jurisdictional bar had been established.

The State’s assertion that confiscation had been initiated was unsupported, and neither the addition of EC Act provisions nor a request for confiscation was sufficient, by itself, to engage Section 6E

Given that the petitioner was the registered owner, was not an accused, and the investigation was complete, the Magistrate erred in treating the statutory bar as conclusive

Applying the principles against prolonged retention of vehicles, the court considered interim release appropriate subject to verification and safeguards

It set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed that, upon a fresh application by the owner or authorised agent, the trial court consider release subject to verifying and assessing the vehicle and the 613 sacks of corn, requiring production of the vehicle when called for, and prohibiting its sale or any change to its nature or character during the criminal case

Any confiscation proceedings initiated or shown to be pending before the competent authority may continue according to law; interim custody is subject to an undertaking to produce the vehicle before the Collector or trial court when required