1. All the aforesaid four petitions are clubbed together for the purposes of disposal by a common order as the point for consideration in all the four cases is virtually the same.

2. Cr. Rev. No. 61/2004 has been filed against the orders dated 04-06-2004 and 16-07-2004 respectively vide which the Truck bearing No. JK-13 0623 seized by Excise Department, registration certificate and route permit relating to the said vehicle have been ordered to be released in favour of the respondent(s). Revision petition No.32/2006 and Petition under section 561-A No.49-S/2006 have been filed against the orders of learned Sessions Judge Kathua dated 13-04-2006 and 10-08-2006 respectively vide which two vehicles (Trucks) bearing registration No.PB-12 G 7866 and PB 10-Y8055 have been ordered to be released on `Superdari in favour of the registered owners/respondents.

3. In Cr. Rev. No.85/2006, the order dated 25-08-2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua has been impugned showing the grievance that respondent/accused Jarnail Masih should have also been charged under section 48-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958 (hereinafter for short referred to as the "Excise Act) along with the charges under section 8(c) and 15(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the `N.D.P.S. Act. In fact he has been charged under N.D.P.S. Act only.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that from the aforesaid trucks, contraband was allegedly seized when they were intercepted by the excise official(s) on different dates. Since the quantum of recovery of the contraband or as a matter of fact violation of any of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is not the issue for debate before me, therefore, I do not feel the necessity of entering into the details with regard to the facts of individual case.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides in all and perused the records. Records relating to the case of Jarnail Masihs (Cr.Rev.85/2006) have also been requisitioned for the perusal of this court and the main order is being recorded in the, aforesaid revision.

6. Admittedly the seized articles have already been released to the respondents. Mr. Bhat submits that the excise official(s) had intercepted the trucks and found the narcotic items (contraband) in those vehicles. During the investigation it was established that the accused were not only guilty of commission of offence punishable under section 15 of N.D.P.S. Act, they had also committed offence under section 48-A of the Excise Act. According to Mr. Bhat in Jarnail Masihs case the challan was also produced before the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Kathua for the commission of offence under the Excise Act along with the N.D.P.S. Act, but the learned Sessions Judge has not said even a word in the impugned order dated 25.08.2006 with regard to the Excise Act and order the framing of the charge against him under the N.D.P.S. Act only. This reflects non application of mind by the court concerned and the case calls for reappraisal afresh.

7. Mr. Bhat, however, very fairly states that while deciding the application for release of the truck No. PB-12-G-7866, the court, however, vide order (annexure-G) has considered all the aspects, including the provisions of Excise Act and ultimately ordered the release of the said vehicle on `Superdari to its owner. The order is also the subject-matter of one of the present revision petitions (Rev. petition No.32/2006).

8. Mr. Bhat then submits that since the recoveries effected in all the cases bring the individual case within the mischief of section 48 of the Excise Act and as such the case property which includes vehicles also taken in custody during investigation are liable for confiscation under section 58 and 59 of the Act for which the confiscation proceedings were already initiated and the notice issued to the respondents/owners for tendering their explanation. According to Mr. Bhat, the Excise Act provides a complete procedur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document