We have referred to the scheme of the Act and from that it is evident that the vehicle seized has to be produced before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has been conferred with the power of its confiscation or release to its rightful owner. The requirement of production of seized property before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 59(1) of the Act is, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, and, so also is the power of confiscation. Not only this, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court, in terms of Section 61 of the Act, has jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the property used in commission of any offence under the Act. In the present case, the Legislature has used a non-obstante clause not only in Section 59 but also in Section 61 of the Act. As is well settled, a non-obstante clause is a legislative device to give effect to the enacting part of the section in case of conflict over the provisions mentioned in the non-obstante clause. Hence, Section 451, 452 and 457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof.
24. From the statutory provisions and the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs the position that emerges is that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were right in holding that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is the Authorized Officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and not the Magistrate. The High Court was in error in taking a view to the contrary and in setting aside the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge on that basis.
12. From a conspectus of what we have observed above, the impugned order of the High Court is found to be vulnerable and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to stand.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25 OF 2014
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs NARENDER
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.1
Citation; 2014(1) Crimes 168 SC , I(2014)CCR222(SC), 2014(1)MLJ(Crl)213, 2014(1)SCALE116
