Ragipati Sai Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 851 AP

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                  WRIT PETITION No.17483 of 2020
ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the

petitioner's Ashok Leyland Dost Vehicle bearing no.AP 39 TJ 2512 in

Crime No.223 of 2020 without having any power or authority and

contrary to the procedure contemplated under section 53, 54 and 55 of

the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 as illegal, arbitrary and

consequently direct the respondents to return the petitioner's vehicle

forthwith.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the registration

of the Crime under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 by the

authorities are contrary to the procedure contemplated under section

53, 54 and 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968. He relies that

section 55 of the A.P.Excise Act reads as follows:

55. Power to search without warrant. - Whenever the Commissioner or a Collector [or Executive Magistrate] or any police officer not below the rank of an officer-in-charge of a police station or any Prohibition and Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector has reason to believe that an offence under Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Section 37 or Section 37-A has been, is being or is likely to be, committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may after recording the grounds of his belief,-

(a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and

(b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by

relying on the above said provision has categorically stated that in the

present case, the registration of the crime under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act 1968 is contrary to the above said provision.

4. To support his contention, he has relied on certain judgments

reported in Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy v State of A.P.1.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing

on behalf of the respondents has contended that in view of the

insertion of section 56(a) to the Act, section 55 has no relevance and

apart from that the learned Government Pleader has further contended

that without questioning the crime section, the petitioner cannot

question only seizure of the vehicle.

6. Considering the rival submissions, without going into the merits

of the case and giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections

along with the application filed by the petitioner for release of the

vehicle under the provisions of the Act and the authorities are directed

to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on the application

filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland Dost

vehicle bearing no.AP 39 TJ 2512 on interim custody on submitting

collateral security/immovable property security for the value of the

vehicle as per the provisions of the A.P.Registration Act by the

petitioner, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the

vehicle, shall not change its physical features or create any

encumbrance or change of the same. The petitioner shall produce the

vehicle whenever he is directed to do so by the lower Court. No costs.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 15.02.2021 RD

2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 251 (A.P)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.17483 of 2020

Dated 15.02.2021

RD