Allowed

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018CRLR/3493/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed against Chief Judicial Magistrate order rejecting vehicle release application. High Court held indefinite detention impermissible without confiscation under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act. Set aside impugned order and directed trial court to pass afresh order with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Learned Magistrate directed to pass order afresh expeditiously allowing release of vehicle with conditions.

Rajendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3493 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Rajendra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harindra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 316 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 IPC, Section 60 U.P. Excise Act and Section 54/64 of Copyright Act whereby application of the revisionist to release the Vehicle No. U.P. 50 Q 9149 was rejected on the ground that report has been submitted to District Collector for proceeding under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that till now vehicle has not been confiscated by the District Collector under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act. Learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without ensuring the fact that whether vehicle has been confiscated or not by the Collector.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court.

¶9

If vehicle has not been confiscated under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act and proceeding is going on, then for the indefinite period, vehicle in question cannot be seized. It was the duty of the learned Magistrate to ensure on the authority concerned whether under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act, vehicle has been confiscated or not. If vehicle has not been confiscated, then merely due to pendency of proceeding under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act, vehicle cannot be detained for indefinite period.

¶10

If proceeding under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act is going on, learned Magistrate may release the vehicle by imposing condition on revisionist/owner of the vehicle to produce the vehicle before District Collector, if required for confiscation proceeding.

¶11

In view of above, this criminal revision stands allowed and the order dated 24.9.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 316 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 IPC, Section 60 U.P. Excise Act and Section 54/64 of Copyright Act is set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to pass order afresh in the light of observations made above, expeditiously.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Jaswant

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanak Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Ker and Others Vs State of U.P.

Awtar Singh Chug and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Inder Jeet Vs State of U.P.