JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The State of Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 28th of November, 2011 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal M.C. No. 2540 of 2011, whereby it had directed for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-56-7290 to the registered owner on security, has preferred this special leave petition.

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that while constables Raghmender Singh and Sunil were on night patrolling duty at Kirari Nithari turn on 17th of April, 2011, they saw a vehicle coming from the side of the Nithari Village. Constable Raghmender Singh signalled the driver to stop the vehicle, but he did not accede to his command and turned the vehicle into the Prem Nagar Extension Lane. Both the constables chased the vehicle on their motorcycle and the driver of the vehicle, apprehending that he would be caught, left the vehicle and ran away from the place, taking advantage of the darkness. The vehicle abandoned by the driver was “Cruiser Force” and had registration No. HR-56- 7290. After opening of the windows of the vehicle, 27 Cartons, each containing 12 bottles of 750 ml. Mashaledar country-made liquor and 20 Cartons, each containing 48 quarters of Besto Whisky were found inside the vehicle. All the 47 Cartons were embossed with ‘Sale in Haryana only’. Constable Raghmender Singh gave a report to the police and on that basis FIR No. 112 of 2011 dated 17.04.2011 was registered at Aman Vihar Police Station under Section 33(a) and Section 58 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. During the course of investigation, Narender, respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed an application for its release on security, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, who, by his order dated 24th of May, 2011 rejected the same, inter alia, holding that he has no power to release the vehicle seized in connection with the offence under the Delhi Excise Act. The respondent again filed an application for the same relief i.e. for release of the vehicle on security before the Metropolitan Magistrate but the said application also met with the same fate. By order-dated 14th of July, 2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to pass the order for release, inter alia, observing that any order directing for release of the vehicle on security would amount to review of the order dated 24th of May, 2011, which power the court did not possess.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), assailing the order dated 24th May, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court, by its impugned order dated 28th of November, 2011 directed the vehicle to be released in favour of the registered owner on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate. While doing so, the High Court has observed as follows:

“………The vehicle in question was seized by the Police and not confiscated and if that was so, Section 58, Delhi Excise Act would not apply with regard to the vehicle in question and the procedure that was to be followed regarding the vehicle was to be found in Chapter VI of Delhi Excise Act and also Section 451, Cr.P.C………”

Mr. Mohan Jain, Additional Solicitor General appears on behalf of the appellant whereas the respondent is represented by Mr. Harish Pandey. Mr. Jain submits that in view of the embargo put by Section 61 of the Delhi Excise Act, the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for release of the vehicle on security. Mr. Pandey, however, submits that the High Court has the power under Section 451 of the Code to direct for release of the vehicle on security and the same is legal and valid.

Rival submissions necessitate examination of the scheme of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for unlawful imp