Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. Palo, J.
Rajesh Kumar @ Pillu Patel- Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 383 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2016
Excise Act - Confiscation of Seized Intoxicants - M.P. Excise Act, 1915, Section 47, Section 47-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing and transporting illicit liquor. The District Magistrate confiscated the vehicle used for transportation without a valid license. The orders of confiscation were challenged in various courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of confiscation were unsustainable and could not be done until the criminal proceeding was finalized. As the criminal proceeding was still pending, the impugned orders were quashed, and the vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner under certain conditions.
Issues: Validity of confiscation orders, compliance with provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of seized property cannot be done until the criminal proceeding is finalized. The impugned orders were unsustainable as the criminal proceeding was still pending.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of confiscation were quashed. The vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner under certain conditions.
ORDER :
Mr. A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puneet Shroti, learned penal lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard.
2. The brief facts, just necessary for disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner-Rajkumar @ Pillu Patel was arrested on 1-5-2013 in connection with Crime No. 142/2013 registered at Police Station- Bahoriband, District Katni for the offense under section 34(2) of Excise Act for allegedly possessing and transportation of illicit liquor, 495 pouches of country make and 91 pouches of English liquor, quantified as 105 liters.
3. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Katni vide order dated 2-9-2013 confiscated the vehicle which was used for transportation of illicit liquor, without having any valid licence. This order was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur under section 47-B of Excise Act, 1915. The Commissioner, Jabalpur vide order dated 5-11-2013 affirmed the order passed the District Magistrate, Katni stating that the order passed by the District Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, no interference is called for. The petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 167/2014 before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni. The same was decided on 1-11-2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner, Jabalpur, were affirmed. Therefore, the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The petitioner contended that the revisional Court has wrongly dismissed the revision. Order of confiscation passed by the learned District Magistrate, Katni as well as that of Commissioner, Jabalpur is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is also stated that the District Magistrate, Katni did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, after issuing the show cause notice dated 15-5-2013. The respondent/State has not proved its case and therefore, the confiscation order is contrary to the provisions of law. Lodging the FIR, seized liquor as well as vehicle and confiscation thereof by the Police is without any authority and therefore the said order is not good in the eye of law.
5. It is pertinent to note that the District Magistrate, Katni issued notice to the petitioner on 14-5-2013 and the petitioner replied to the said notice which indicates that the petitioner has participated and was informed about the proceedings, before the confiscation was done and, therefore, section 47-A(3) of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 was complied with. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Narayan Sahu vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 10315/16) [reported in 2017(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 17]; Dilip vs. State of M.P., 2012(1) M.P.L.J. 137; Paramjeet Singh vs. State of M.P., 1999 (I) MPWN 143 and Manoj Malu vs. State of M.P., 2002 (2) MPHT 150.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the petition and submitted that the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Commissioner as well as the subsequent order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision, do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and, therefore no interference is called for.
7. For better understanding of provisions of sections 47 and 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 are reproduced :
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
