Trilok Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

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 Actâ€​), 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.

Heard leaned counsel for the parties.

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.

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."".

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.

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.

Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujara,t 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.

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.â€​

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.

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.