Back
2020 Supreme(All) 324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Vikas Kumar – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
APPLICATION U/S 482 No., 33012 of 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appelants : Manvendra Narain Pathak
For the Respondents: G.A.
Point of Law
Mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act shall not operate as a bar against the release of vehicle seized under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 457, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 – Excise Act – Sections 60, 63, 72 – F.I.R. lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C – applicant is registered owner of seized vehicle – Vehicle Seized – in Custody of Police – Release of Vehicle claimed – Held, applicant is registered owner of seized vehicle and ownership of vehicle is not in dispute neither State or any other person has claimed their ownership over vehicle, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping vehicle stationed at police station in the open yard for long period allowing it to be damaged with passage of time –Orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and require interference by this court – Orders are set aside – Application Allowed (paras 13, 14)
Facts of Case
F.I.R. lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C – applicant is registered owner of seized vehicle – Vehicle Seized – in Custody of Police – Release of Vehicle claimed.
Findings of Court
Applicant is registered owner of seized vehicle and ownership of vehicle is not in dispute neither State or any other person has claimed their ownership over vehicle, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping vehicle stationed at police station in the open yard for long period allowing it to be damaged with passage of time –Orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and require interference by this court – Orders are set aside.
Result: Application Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by Incharge Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11 Deoria in Misc. Case No.171 of 2019 (State Vs. Satya Prakash Mall), arising out of Case Crime No.318 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C. and under Sections 60, 63, 72 of Excise Act, Police Station Rudhrapur, District Deoria.
2. Further prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Deoria in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2019 (Vikas Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) filed against the aforesaid order of learned Incharge Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, rejecting the release application which has been confirmed by the learned revisional court.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered owner of vehicle/Mahindra Scorpio bearing Chasis No. MA1TA2TDKJ2J39166 and Engine No.TDJ4J79127, in this regard sale certificate and trade certificate were issued by the agency. Thereafter, the applicant has applied for registration of the said vehicle before the Regional Transport Officer, Siwan and when the vehicle of the applicant was driven by driver, while going to Deoria for treatment of his relative, then police of Police Station Rudhrapur, District Deoria caught the vehicle and detained at Police Station Deoria without any reason. When the applicant came to know about this incident he went to police station to ensure about the incident but the vehicle of the applicant was not there and it was detained by the police to some other place keeping the vehicle in their custody.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case to extract illegal gratification from him and after the denial the police, thereafter, lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C. and under Sections 60, 63, 72 of Excise Act, Police Station Rudhrapur, District Deoria and vehicle was ceased by the police. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant was released on bail on 28.01.2019 in respect of the above incident.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has moved release application before the learned Magistrate stating therein that he is an agriculturist and was using his vehicle for personal use and when the vehicle was ceased by the police, driver of the applicant was going to Deoria for treatment of his relative and the vehicle was wrongly detained by the police. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it was wrongly stated by the police that applicant was transporting the liqueur in the said vehicle.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the release application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 10.06.2019 only on the ground that the investigation was going on and the confiscation proceedings under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act were pending before the District Magistrate, Deoria, therefore, the vehicle cannot be released. Against the order of learned Magistrate, the applicant has filed criminal revision before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria bearing Case No.93 of 2019 (Vikas Vs. State of U.P.) and the learned revisional court rejected the criminal revision vide order dated 18.07.2019 on the same ground, observing that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the District Magistrate, Deoria, therefore, the vehicle in question cannot be released.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the vehicle is standing in open yard in the police station since long and with the passage of time ultimately it will becom
