Allahabad High Court
Ankit Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 17893 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ankit Agarwal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui,Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) This Court has perused the order impugned dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Opposite party no.2-District Magistrate, Barabanki, in Case No.01366/2019 Computerized Case No.D201904120001366 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kumar Jogi and Others) under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and also the judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed by the District Judge in Appeal No.63/2021 under Section 72 (6) of U.P. Excise Act.
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Truck No.UK17-CA-1869. The said Truck was carrying 400 bags of organic fertilizer from Haryana to Siliguri, West Bengal but was stopped by the Police in Barabanki for extraneous consideration. Since the petitioner's driver could not give illegal gratification to the police party, the police implicated the Truck showing recovery of 300 containers of illegal liquor and lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No.209/2019 on 30.05.2019. Subsequently, on the basis of report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, South, Barabanki, the Opposite party no.2 registered Case No.01366/2019 under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and issued notice to the petitioner who appeared on 18.09.2019 before the Court and submitted that his Truck was wrongly implicated. He also submitted that he has no concern with the running of the Truck. The Truck was being operated by the driver on his own. Although the Truck was registered in the name of the petitioner, he had given it to the driver who would operate the Truck and keep his expenses with him and give to the petitioner a part of the profit earned. The opposite party no.2, however, directed confiscation the Truck of the petitioner on the ground that it was found carrying 300 cartons of liquor illegally to Bihar and had been intercepted by the police party on way while directing confiscation of the Truck and option was given to the petitioner to deposit Rs.8 lacs as Security money so that the Truck may be released in his favour and being case property would be produced whenever the same was required in the future. However, the petitioner being aggrieved filed an Appeal which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal but had been decided by the District Judge as Criminal Appeal as the seal that is shown under the signatures of the District Judge show him to be sitting as Sessions Judge, Barabanki.
(4) This Court has carefully perused both the orders impugned that it finds that the learned District Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter including the petitioner's contention that he was not operating his Truck but his driver was doing the same on his own and he was only giving share in the profit earned by the driver. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not show any evidence of any contract being entered between himself and his driver for running Truck in the manner as was alleged by the petitioner. Learned District Judge has also considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before him that the petitioner had not been implicated in the Charge-sheet that has been filed is not an accused. The District Judge has found that it was not necessary for the owner of the Truck to be made accused in the criminal case. The District Judge only considered the question whether the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate was correctly passed on the facts of the case. In the Appeal it was found that the District Magistrate has confiscated the Truck in question in terms of the provisions of Section 72-1 (D) as also Section 12 (5). It was found by both the courts below that the Truck in question may have been driven by the driver of the petitioner but it was registered in his name and he was responsible for the same and the Truck in question was found illegally transporting 300 cartons of liquor.
(5) This Court finds no good ground to show interference in the orders impugned, hence, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
PAL
