Rajasthan High Court: Magistrate Must Differentiate Escorting vs. Carrying Vehicle in Excise Seizures for Release Applications

Jaipur , Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed a Metropolitan Magistrate's order that dismissed an application for the release of a Bolero Jeep seized in connection with an excise case. Justice SudeshBansal emphasized that judicial magistrates must thoroughly examine whether a seized vehicle was merely "escorting" another vehicle carrying illicit liquor, as opposed to directly transporting it, before deciding on its release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that the bar on jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, is not absolute and does not automatically apply to escorting vehicles.

The High Court remanded the matter back to the Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, for a fresh, reasoned decision on the petitioner's application for the release of his Bolero Jeep (RJ-29-UA-6692) on 'supurdginama' (custody bond).

Case Background

The petitioner's Bolero Jeep was seized in connection with FIR No.34/2024 registered at Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur , for offences under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The petitioner, the registered owner, contended that his Jeep was merely an escorting vehicle and that illicit liquor was found in a separate container (RJ-18-GB-6893). An application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for the vehicle's release was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.02.2024, leading to the present petition before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions:

* The Bolero Jeep was an escorting vehicle and was not transporting any liquor.

* Investigation concerning the Jeep was complete, and its continued seizure at the police station, exposed to the elements, served no purpose for the criminal trial.

* The Magistrate's dismissal order was "non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic" as it failed to consider the crucial distinction of the vehicle's role.

* Citing precedents like Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Sikander Ali v. State of Rajasthan , counsel argued that the bar under Section 69(4)(6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act does not apply to escorting vehicles, and the Magistrate had jurisdiction to release it.

Public Prosecutor's Stance (before the Magistrate):

* The Public Prosecutor had opposed the release, citing Section 69(4)(6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, arguing that the Excise Commissioner, not the court, has jurisdiction to pass orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, or release of conveyances seized in connection with excise offences.

High Court's Scrutiny and Reasoning

Justice SudeshBansal , after examining the impugned order, found it severely lacking in reasoning.

Critique of the Magistrate's Order

The High Court observed that the Magistrate's order failed to address fundamental issues:

"From perusal of the impugned order... it stands clear that the Judicial Magistrate has not extended any heed on the issue that in which capacity, the vehicle in question Bolero Jeep was being used and for what reasons, this vehicle, has been seized... Judicial Magistrate has not considered as to whether the vehicle in question was an escorting vehicle or was being used for transporting the liquor. No report in this regard from the concerned police station was called." (Para 11)

The Court termed the order "non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic" and passed "without application of judicial mind as much as in perfunctory manner."

Imperative of Reasoned Judicial Orders

The judgment extensively reiterated the necessity for judicial orders to be reasoned, citing several Supreme Court precedents:

* State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 573] : "the giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter..."

* Secretary & Curator Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors [(2010) 3 SCC 732] : "It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it."

* Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Ors. [(2010) 13 SCC 336] : Assigning reasons is the "hallmark of the order."

Justice Bansal emphasized:

"reason is the heart beat of every judicial order/decision and absence of reasons, renders the order indefensible/unsustainable..." (Para 12)

Jurisdiction for Escorting Vehicles Under Excise Act

The High Court strongly relied on established precedents to clarify the law on releasing escorting vehicles:

* Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2012 (1) Cri.LR (Raj) 157] : It was held that Section 69 provisions apply only to conveyances used in carrying contraband. If a vehicle (like a Bolero Jeep in that case) was not carrying illicit liquor, it could be released by the court.

* Sikander Ali v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 1 Cri.LR (Raj) 89] : This case followed Kana Ram , holding that the embargo of Section 69 "would only operate when the vehicle is seized while carrying the liquor."

* Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan (Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 4580 of 2018) : Confirmed that Section 457 Cr.P.C. is the proper remedy for the release of an escorting vehicle.

The Court summarized the legal position:

"if the vehicle/conveyance is not found to be used to carry receptacles or package yet has been seized under the Rajasthan Excise Act, the proper remedy seeking to release such vehicle/conveyance would lie before the Court by way of filing an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and the embargo envisaged under Section 69... would not apply..." (Para 19)

Applying this to the current case, the Court noted:

"If the contention of petitioner is correct and his vehicle is not involved for transporting the liquor or receptacles/package, the embargo of Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act would not be applicable on his vehicle and same can be released by the Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of its powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C..." (Para 20) However, the Court clarified that "the factual aspect of involvement of vehicle needs to be verified from the record, by the Magistrate before passing the order to release the vehicle on supurdginama."

Final Decision and Directions

The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order dated 29.02.2024, finding it unsustainable. The petitioner's application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was revived and remanded to the Judicial Magistrate with directions to: 1. Decide the application afresh on its merits. 2. Pass a reasoned and speaking order. 3. Ponder over the factual and legal issues, particularly whether the Bolero Jeep was an escorting vehicle or directly involved in transporting liquor. 4. Dispose of the application expeditiously, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat .

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to lower courts about the diligence required in applying legal principles, especially when statutory bars on jurisdiction are invoked, and underscores the non-negotiable requirement for reasoned judicial decision-making.