Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3519
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pratyush Kumar, J.
Lazza Davi and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. - 3488 of 2014
Decided On : 08-05-2015
For the Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar
For the Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Yogesh Kumar Vaish
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to exhaust the special remedy provided in the U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964 for the disposal of forfeited molasses and articles before seeking release of the property, and the preservation of the property for a fair trial.
Headnote:
Seal - U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964 - 8, 11, 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964, specifically sections 8, 11, and 12, which regulate the sale, supply, and contravention of the Act. The court also referred to the relevant rules under the Act, such as Rule 37, 38, 39, and 40, which deal with the disposal of forfeited molasses and articles. The court highlighted the power of police officers to enter, search, and seize property under sections 14 and 15 of the Act, and the procedure for reporting and disposing of seized property. The judgment emphasized the legal framework for the regulation and disposal of molasses and related articles, influencing the court's decision to maintain the seal on the premises.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the illegal storage and use of molasses in the manufacturing of tobacco, resulting in the death of two individuals. The revisionists sought to unseal their premises, claiming that they had a license to manufacture tobacco with molasses. The court analyzed the legality of sealing the premises and the disposal of the case property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the premises, including the underground tank, constituted case property and were subject to trial. It concluded that the special remedy provided in the U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964 for the disposal of molasses and articles must be exhausted before seeking release of the property. The court also held that the property should be preserved for a fair trial and that the revisionists' constitutional rights were not violated.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of sealing the premises, the disposal of case property, and the constitutional rights of the revisionists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964, and the relevant provisions for the regulation and disposal of molasses and related articles. It emphasized the need to exhaust the special remedy provided in the Act before seeking release of the property and the preservation of the property for a fair trial.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, with the liberty for the revisionists to seek release of the property at the proper time and stage of trial, with the court's observations having no bearing on the consideration of their prayer for release.
Pratyush Kumar,J.
The instant revision is directed against the order dated 16.9.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in case crime no.363 of 2013 & case crime no.367 of 2013, State Vs. Sohanlal, under sections 284, 288, 304-A, 304, IPC and sections 8/11/12 of U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964, P.S. Jawer, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby application of the revisionists for removing seal from their premises was rejected.
2. In order to appreciate the question involved in the present revision, I would like to place on record briefly facts, which gave rise to the present revision.
3. On 8.10.13 at 10.05 a.m. Nagendra gave a written report at P.S. Javer stating therein that Sohanlal Tayal and his sons are maintaining molasses and Tobacco godown in village Modelpur @ Sadalpur near Banjara Basti. Due to faulty egress and ingress the underground tank is filled of gas and poisonous molasses. Yesterday Chandra Pal Sharma was asked to enter the underground tank, who died therein. Today at 8.00 a.m. sons of Sohanlal fully knowing the danger to human life lured his uncle Banwari Singh to enter the tank and bring out the dead body of Chandra Pal. His uncle also died in the tank. The first informant requested to take suitable action against Sohan Lal and his sons. On this written report, FIR was scribed and case crime no.363/2013, under sections 284, 288, 304A, IPC was registered. Thereafter, on 12.10.2013 at 3.30 p.m. at the same police station Tulsi Ram Vaishyo, Excise Inspector, Sector 3, Gautam Budh Nagar gave a written report stating therein that on the basis of first information report lodged by Nagendra, he went with his staff to the spot and with the help of S.I. Virendra Singh after unlocking the door of godown, he found that accused Sohanlal Tayal is manufacturing tobacco used in hukka with the help of molasses. He has taken three samples thereof, storage of molasses and manufacturing tobacco therefrom is in violation of provisions contained in section 8 of U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964 punishable under sections 11 & 12 of the Act. He has requested to register a case under the said sections along with provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He has further requested to seal the godown to avoid repetition of similar untoward incident. On this written report FIR was scribed and case crime no.367/2013, under sections 8/11/12 of U.P. Molasses Control Act, 1964 was registered and investigation started.
4. On behalf of revisionists on 10.2.2013 application to unlock the godown was moved before the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar in case crime no.367/2013 wherein allegations made in the first information report were denied and it was stated that Sohanlal had licence to manufacture tobacco with the help of molasses. In case articles stored in the godown were not taken out, they would be put to great loss. On this application report of T.R. Vaisho was obtained, who had reiterated the facts stated in the first information report. According to him, godown was locked and sealed for preventing repetition of similar untoward incident. According to him, no licence was issued to manufacture tobacco or storage of molasses for village Modelpur. During the chemical examination stored molasses was found to be made in a sugar mill, which was an illegal act. In addition to that he had also opposed the application of the revisionists on the ground that godown should not be unlocked lest accused might tamper with the evidence.
5. Vide order dated 24.2.2014 Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionists taking into consideration the report of Excise Inspector. This order was challenged by way of criminal revision no.25/2014, Smt. Lazza Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. before the court of Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. In the revision fresh facts were stated to wit, the revisionists were not accused in the cases mentioned hereinbefore, they were
