Uttarakhand High Court
Trilok Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Crl. Misc. Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 495 of 2020
Trilok Singh ...................Applicant
vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...............Respondents
Present:
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.
Hon'ble N.S.Dhanik.J. (Oral)
By means of present C-482 Petition, the
petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated
03.09.2019 passed in Case No. 43 of 2019 (Crime No. 49 of
2018-19), under Sections 60/72 of the United Provinces
Excise Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Police
Station Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh. Further prayer is
made to direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the
petitioner having registration no. UK07-CA 7222 in terms
and conditions, which this Court deems fit and proper.
2. Heard leaned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner is the owner of truck no. UK07-CA
7222. On 28.10.2018, the said truck was seized with the
allegation that illicit liquor was being transported on forged
documents. Pursuant thereto, criminal proceedings were
launched against the accused persons including the
petitioner. In addition, respondent no.2 also recommended
for the confiscation of the aforementioned truck of the
petitioner in terms of Section 72(2) of the Act.
4. Section 72 (2) of the Uttarakhand (the U.P.
Excise Act, 1910) (Amendment) Act, 2019, reads as follows:
""(2) Where anything or animal is seized under any provision
of this Act, and the officer seizing and detaining such property
shall, within three working days from the date of such seizure
and detention; produce a detailed report for confiscation along
with such seized property, seizure memo and other reliant
documents before the Collector. The Collector shall upon
receiving the said report along with seizure memo seized
property, immediately order for safe custody and storage of
goods as he may deem fit. The Collector, if satisfied for reasons
to be recorded that an offence has been committed due to which
such thing or animal has become liable to confiscation under
sub-section (1), he may order confiscation of such thing or
animal whether or not a prosecution for such offence has been
instituted: Provided that in the case of anything (except an
intoxicant) or animal "referred to in sub-section (1), the owner
thereof shall be given an option to pay in lieu of its confiscation
such fine as the Collector thinks adequate not exceeding its
market value on the date of its seizure.".
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the impugned order has been passed without considering
the above legal proposition. It is undisputed that the
confiscation proceedings are still pending and meanwhile
the petitioner has also been exonerated by the
investigating agency.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner's vehicle has been kept idle since long
resulting in wear and tear of the vehicle. Learned counsel
would further submit that petitioner earns his livelihood
from the said truck and keeping the same seized for a long
time would result in irreparable loss to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2002 (8) Supreme 525, in which, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held, as under:
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use
to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well
as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any
point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications
for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused,
owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such
vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said
vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance
company be informed by the Court to take possession of the
vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If
Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be
sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass
such order within a period of six months from the date of
production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case,
before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate
photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed
panchnama should be prepared."
8. It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate is
the sole authority under the Act to pass an order for
confiscation or release of vehicle so seized under the Act.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering the facts that & circumstances of the case and
legal proposition cited above, this petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the
Collector, Pithoragarh is quashed. The District Magistrate
concerned is directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for release of his aforementioned vehicle in accordance
with law and ratio held in para 17 & 18 of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and the above provisions of the
Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
(N.S.Dhanik, J.)
09.08.2021
Kaushal
