Bombay High Court
M/S. Satbhai Wines Kopargaon ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 March, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
952.wp.1432.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 2020
M/s. Satbhai Wines Kopargaon
through
Sanjay Vasantrao Satbhai
Age : 68 years, Occup : Business
R/o Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Police Inspector,
State Excise Department
Flying Squad - 2, Shrirampur
Dist. Ahmednagar ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2020
M/s. Satbhai Traders Kopargaon
through
Vikramaditya Sanjay Satbhai
Age : 31 years, Occup : Business
R/o Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Police Inspector,
State Excise Department
Flying Squad - 2, Shrirampur
Dist. Ahmednagar ... Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Usha P. Kale h/f. Mr. Pramod D. Kale
APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
Reserved on 25.02.2021
Pronounced on : 01.03.2021
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2021 23:58:42 :::
952.wp.1432.20.odt
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The
learned APP waives service of notice for respondent State. With the consent
of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the orders passed by the two courts below refusing to return
the liquor seized in Crime No.214/2019 by the Squad of Maharashtra State
Excise Department on the basis of which offence is registered under Sections
65 (a)(e), 80 (1), 83, 98(2), 66 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. A vehicle was intercepted in which liquor was found. It was
also found stored in a godown. It was suspected that it was a spurious
liquor and the prosecution was initiated.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are valid licence holders and have been using the very same
godown for stocking liquor. Even the vehicle that was intercepted and in
which same liquor was being transported belong to them. Since they were
possessing valid permits, are entitled to claim the vehicle as well as liquor
seized in the matter.
5. She would further submit that the Magistrate has returned the
vehicle to them but refused to return the liquor. Even the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in revision has taken the same stand.
6. She would submit that copies of the licences issued by the
District Collector clearly refer to licences being held by the petitioners which
have been renewed from time to time till date. They have both the licences
CL-III as well as FL-II since 1992-93. The godown from where the liquor is
seized is also duly recorded in one such permit as a place of storage. In
spite of such state of affairs, both the courts below have erroneously refused
to return the liquor.
952.wp.1432.20.odt
7. She also produces on record a latest certificate issued by the
Chief Officer of the Kopergaon Municipal Council dated 20.01.2021
mentioning that the petitioner - Sanjay Vasantrao Satbhai (in Crl.
WP/1432/2020) is the owner of the concerned godown standing in City
Survey No.1543 (B) 105 which number has subsequently changed to
1543/403/01 and 1543/403/02. It further reads that it stands recorded in
his name since the year 1991. She would therefore submit that the
petitioners being legally entitled to claim the liquor, it ought to be returned
to them.
8. The learned APP strongly opposes the petitions. She submits
that the two courts below have rightly refused to returned liquor to the
petitioners. The liquor was found stored at an unauthorized place. The
investigation was going on and in the fact situation of the matter the two
courts below were justified in refusing to return liquor.
9. Without indulging into any longer discussion it would be
appropriate to observe that in view of the latest certificate issued by the
Chief Officer of the Kopargaon Municipal Council, the petitioner - Sanjay
Vasantrao Satbhai appears to be the owner in possession of the godown of
which the numbers changed during the course of time. It also reads that he
has been using that godown for storing liquor and as his FL-II licence also
reads that it is the godown wherein he is permitted to store liquor. Such
endorsement is appearing since 1995.
10. Admittedly, the vehicle in which some quantity of liquor was
being transported has been directed to be returned. As of now the
petitioners have not been arrayed as accused. The CA report placed on
record by the learned APP as a part of the papers of investigation show, that
there was nothing spurious.
11. It is also pertinent to note that in the meanwhile the Collector
had also issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as
952.wp.1432.20.odt
to why their respective licence may not be suspended/cancelled. By the
orders dated 26.06.2020 the learned Collector has disposed of the notice by
directing composition, on petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/-
each. Meaning thereby that even the Collector does not now dispute their
right and title over the seized liquor.
12. In view of such state of affairs, the petitions deserve to be
allowed.
13. The petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders
are quashed and set aside. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.192/2020 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.193/2020 stand
allowed. The liquor shall be returned to the respective petitioners subject to
the conditions to be imposed by the Magistrate. He shall now put whatever
conditions as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances. The Rule is
accordingly made absolute in both the petitions.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
