THE MAGISTRATE HAS JURISDICTION TO RELEASE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN PROHIBITION OFFENCES, BUT NOT IN EXCISE OFFENCES.

Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) CRL. M. P. No. 3193/95 is filed for release of the lorry bearing No. A. P. 16 U 2297, which was seized by the second respondent as it was found to be carrying 11 bottles of whisky, Crl. M. P. No. 3249/95 is filled for release of the Ambassador car bearing No. TMT 7962, which was seized by the first respondent as it was found to be carrying 70 litres of arrack in plastic containers.

( 2 ) THESE two petitions were heard by a learned single Judge, P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the order dated 27-5-1995 in Crl. M. P. No. 2529 of 1995 made by Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. , contended before the learned single Judge that the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to order release of the vehicles in favour of the petitioners by way of interim custody. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. G. V. Sudhkar Rao, AIR 1986 SC 328 : (1986 Cri LJ 357) contended that the provision under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is general in nature and it has to yield to any special provision made in a statute with regard to forfeiture and confiscation of any property. He also contended that the bar imposed under Section 46e of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 on the jurisdiction of the Magistrate with regard to disposal of case property, including vehicles, when the matter is seized by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise or the Appellate authority, is reserved even after the enactment of the A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The learned single Judge having differed with the view taken in Crl. M. P. No. 2529 of 1995, referred the matter to a Division Bench.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that crimes were registered against the petitioners under the A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and also under the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, that under Section 451 of Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to order release of the vehicles in favour of the petitioners by way of interim custody and that when the crime is registered under both the Acts, the bar imposed under section 46e of the A. P. Excise Act will have no operation as the A. P. Prohibition Act has the overriding effect over other Acts. He relied in this behalf upon the order in Crl. M. P. No. 2529 of 1995 made by Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. and stated that the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer s case (1986 Cri LJ 357) (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to pass orders for release of the vehicles in favour of the petitioners.

( 4 ) IN view of the above contentions, the important question of law that arises for consideration is, Whether the Magistrate has got power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the vehicles, which were involved in offences under the A. P. Prohibition Act and the A. P. Excise Act, pending disposal of the case.

( 5 ) IT is necessary to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons behind enacting the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. They are as under :"article 47 of the Constitution enjoins that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of all intoxicating drinks which are injurious to health. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 which satisfied the above Constitutional mandate was in force in the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh until the 30/10/1969. Prohibition was lifted in the Andhra Area of the State also with effect from the 1/11/1969 and from that date onwards there has been no prohibition on the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In recent times, it is noticed that the consumption of alcoholic drinks has grown alarmingly and has developed into a social evil. Though the sale of arrack was ban

Click Here to Read the rest of this document