Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Ranjit Singh S/o Nirmal Singh Rana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2022 (ANNEXURE A-1), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.06/2022, arising out of the order passed by the learned Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in an Appeal Case No. R.E.C/-20/2020-21 vide order dated 24.07.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 02.12.2019 in the impugned order) filed by the applicant under section 47-B of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Case No. B-121 Year 2019-20, the present petitioner prefers instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . on the following facts and grounds:
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.04.2020, the Excise Sub-Inspector received secret information in Excise Circle Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) that a truck bearing registration No. PB-65- AV-1121 is standing in front of a Dhaba in village Harinchhapra and his driver is selling Goa Whisky. On that basis, the Exci
The court held that failure to comply with statutory requirements for notice and opportunity to contest confiscation renders the order invalid, violating principles of natural justice.
Confiscation under S.47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act mandates notice and hearing, failure of which invalidates the seizure.
Confiscation orders under the M.P. Excise Act can be issued despite ongoing criminal trials, necessitating a reference to a Larger Bench due to conflicting opinions among Coordinate Benches.
Provisions in Section 67B of the Act operate independent of Section 67C, it is not to be taken that when an owner does not invoke the provision in Section 67C, there should be confiscation under Sect....
A court maintains jurisdiction to decide on the interim custody of seized property unless given proper notice of confiscation proceedings, as outlined in related statutes.
Confiscation of vehicle under the NDPS Act requires adherence to procedural fairness, including providing notice and opportunity for hearing to claimants, regardless of their conviction status.
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires direct involvement of the owner in the offense; without such involvement, confiscation orders are deemed arbitrary and un....
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires evidence of the owner's consent or involvement in illegal activities; failure to establish this renders confiscation inva....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
