IMPORTANT POINTS
The Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate as also sell the vehicles certain conditions.
Confiscation and prosecution are two different things.
Punishment on prosecution may be imposed even after confiscation.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The owner of seized truck is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on October 30, 2017, whereby the order passed by the Collector on 12.11.2016 and by the District Judge on 3.8.2017 confiscating the Vehicle for violation of Sections 60 and 72 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 (for short, ‘Act’), remained unsuccessful.

3. An FIR was lodged on November 17, 2015 for the offences under Sections 60 and 72 of the Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) in respect of seizure of 154 cartons of illicit liquor, one .315 bore country made pistol with two .315 bore live cartridges, by a team of Excise Department and the Police Officials. The investigation was taken up by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Sub-Inspector.

4. On December 17, 2015, a notice was served upon the appellant by the District Magistrate, who is also the Collector of the District to show cause as to why the seized truck be not confiscated. The show cause notice in respect of the Santro Car meant for Nisar Ahmed son of Nazir was issued as to why the car be not confiscated.

5. On an application filed by Nisar Ahmed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on March 15, 2016 passed an order of release of Santro Car.

6. The appellant filed objections before the District Magistrate on September 23, 2016 in response to the show cause notice served on him wherein the appellant sought release of the Vehicle as it is sole means of his livelihood and that he will suffer financial loss. In pursuance of such show cause notice, the District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation and auction of both vehicles, owned by Nisar Ahmed and the Appellant, and the sale proceeds be deposited in Government treasury. However, the appellant was given an option in terms of Section 72 of the Act to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as market value of the truck. Nisar was given an option to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to seek release of the car.

7. The appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, a judicial authority appointed by the State Government, which was dismissed on August 3, 2017. Further, challenge to the said order remained unsuccessful before the High Court vide the order impugned in the present appeal.

8. The High Court held that in terms of Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Code’), the Act is special and local Act to deal with the properties seized under the Act, therefore, the provisions contained in the Code with regard to disposal of property can be used only to the extent they are not inconsistent with Section 72 of the Act. The High Court relied upon an order passed by this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Narender, (2014) 13 SCC 100.

9. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since FIR has been registered in respect of transportation of illicit liquor, therefore, the Magistrate who is competent to conduct trial alone is competent to pass an order of release of vehicle. It is on completion of the trial; the Magistrate will pass an order of confiscation of the vehicle. Thus, it is argued that the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation of the vehicle. Reliance is placed upon judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624. It is also argued that judgment in Narender is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the aforesaid case, the jurisdiction of all courts was specifically excluded but that is not the situation in the present case.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that confiscation of a vehicle is an independent proceeding, independent of prosecution of the offences under the IPC. The confiscation of the vehicle engaged in transportation of illicit liquor exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Collector in terms of the various provisions of the Act. Le