Shaik Allah Bakshi vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Heard the submission of Sri D.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and

Excise.Challenge. in this Writ Petition is the order that is rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division in CR.No.152/2022/P&E/B4, dated 25.5.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case is foisted against the petitioners and the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Thorruru, has seized the Eicher vehicle of petitioner No.1 bearing registration No.TS 9 UD 3547, jaggery weighing 2,110 kgs and also alum and indeed, petitioner No.1 has got license to purchase and transport jaggery and alum. Learned counsel further states that earlier,  petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.22990 of 2022 seeking the Court for release of the vehicle and this Court through order dated 29.4.2022 directed petitioner No.1 to make an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, for getting the vehicle released and accordingly, petitioner No.1 moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, seeking release of the vehicle. However, the said request was dishonoured and therefore, petitioner No.1 is again before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though quash of proceedings in the crime registered against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is also sought for, he is not pressing the said relief.

Learned counsel further submits that jaggery and alum are not prohibited goods and further, the vehicle of petitioner No.1 is required for his day-to-day business activities and therefore, the vehicle may be released and given to the custody of 6  petitioner.OpposingNo.1 . the said submission, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that after dishonouring the request of petitioner No.1 for release of the vehicle, confiscation order was also passed and hence, release of the said vehicle is not possible.

It is not in dispute that the vehicle of petitioner No.1 was not seized on the ground that it was used for transportation of the prohibited goods. Therefore, this Court is of the view that without there being an order that the said vehicle was found to be used for commission of offence, confiscation of the same is undesirable. In case, the seized vehicles are kept idle or ordered to be confiscated before there being any substantive material regarding the commission of offence using those vehicles, the same would not be in the interest of justice. Petitioner No.1 is only seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if the interim custody of the vehicle as sought for is granted, the proceedings that would go on in the crime registered against petitioner No.1 and others would not be hampered. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division has not taken a correct view in the impugned order. The observation of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division is that if the vehicle is released and given to the interim custody of petitioner No.1, there is every chance of it being utilized again for transportation of raw materials used to manufacture I.D. liquor. If such is the apprehension, it would be desirable to impose stringent terms and conditions, so that petitioner No.1 will be prevented from doing so. Also, in case, if it is done again, then the Police concerned would get every chance to seize the vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division ought to have released the vehicle and given to the interim custody of petitioner No.1.

It is reported by the leaned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise that the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division has also passed orders of confiscation.

As the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, in the light of the earlier discussion, is found to have went wrong in disallowing the request of petitioner No.1 for release of the vehicle, the subsequent order of confiscation is also set aside.

Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise though stated that there is a provision of preferring appeal within 60 days against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, as the order passed by the said authority is unsustainable in the eye of law, availing or non-availing the remedy of appeal needs no discussion.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division is directed to give the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.TS 09 UD 3547 to the interim custody of petitioner No.1, subject to verification of the ownership, and on petitioner No.1 executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of  Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division. Petitioner No.1 shall also give an undertaking that he will not sell or alter the physical structure of the said vehicle. He shall also give an undertaking that he will maintain the said vehicle in good condition and will produce the said vehicle before the concerned authority as and when directed to do so. It is hereby specified that in case, the vehicle which is given to the interim custody of petitioner No.1 is found to be involved again in similar offence, the same shall be confiscated to State without any further notice to petitioner No1.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.