Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8423 OF 2012)

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

NARENDER

…RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The State of Delhi, aggrieved by the order

dated 28^th of November, 2011 passed by the Delhi

High Court in Criminal M.C. No. 2540 of 2011,

whereby it had directed for release of the vehicle

bearing Registration No. HR-56-7290 to the

registered owner on security, has preferred this

special leave petition.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise

to the present appeal are that while constables

Raghmender Singh and Sunil were on night patrolling

duty at Kirari Nithari turn on 17^th of April, 2011,

they saw a vehicle coming from the side of the

Nithari Village.

Constable Raghmender Singh

signalled the driver to stop the vehicle, but he

did not accede to his command and turned the

vehicle into the Prem Nagar Extension Lane. Both

the constables chased the vehicle on their

motorcycle and the driver of the vehicle,

apprehending that he would be caught, left the

vehicle and ran away from the place, taking

advantage of the darkness. The vehicle abandoned

by the driver was “Cruiser Force” and had

registration No. HR-56-7290. After opening of the

windows of the vehicle, 27 Cartons, each containing

12 bottles of 750 ml. Mashaledar country-made

liquor and 20 Cartons, each containing 48 quarters

of Besto Whisky were found inside the vehicle. All

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

the 47 Cartons were embossed with ‘Sale in Haryana

only’. Constable Raghmender Singh gave a report to

the police and on that basis FIR No. 112 of 2011

dated 17.04.2011 was registered at Aman Vihar

Police Station under Section 33(a) and Section 58

of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. During the course

of investigation, Narender, respondent herein,

claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed an

application for its release on security, before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, who, by his order

dated 24^th of May, 2011 rejected the same, inter

alia, holding that he has no power to release the

vehicle seized in connection with the offence under

the Delhi Excise Act. The respondent again filed

an application for the same relief i.e. for release

of the vehicle on security before the Metropolitan

Magistrate but the said application also met with

the same fate. By order-dated 14^th of July, 2011,

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to

pass the order for release, inter alia, observing

that any order directing for release of the vehicle

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

on security would amount to review of the order

dated 24^th of May, 2011, which power the court did

not possess.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an

application before the High Court under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Code’), assailing the order

dated 24^th

May, 2011 passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court, by its

impugned order dated 28^th of November, 2011 directed

the vehicle to be released in favour of the

registered owner on furnishing security to the

satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate. While

doing so, the High Court has observed as follows:

“………The vehicle in question was

seized by the Police and not

confiscated and if that was so,

Section 58, Delhi Excise Act would

not apply with regard to the vehicle

in question and the procedure that

was to be followed regarding the

vehicle was to be found in Chapter

VI of Delhi Excise Act and also

Section 451, Cr.P.C………”

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

Mr. Mohan Jain, Additional Solicitor General

appears on behalf of the appe