Partly allowed

Jay Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018WRIC/3662/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via a writ petition, quashed the confiscation orders of a motor vehicle for illicit liquor transportation. The court held that the District Magistrate failed to give the petitioner an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, violating statutory provisions. The matter was remitted to determine the fine and allow redemption subject to the criminal trial outcome.

What did the court decide?

Orders quashed to the extent they did not provide an option to pay fine; matter remitted to District Magistrate to quantify fine and pass fresh order.

Jay Prakash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3662 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh in Case No.17 of 2014 (State Vs. Pramod) under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 2010, which order has been upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Azamgarh vide order dated 23.03.2015.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before passing the order dated 03.04.2014, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in any case, no compliance has been made of the mandatory provisions of the proviso to subsection 2 of Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inasmuch as no option was given to the petitioners to pay in lieu of confiscation of the motor vehicle (bearing registration no. U.P. 50 A 0001), fine not exceeding the market value of that vehicle.

¶8

It has further been submitted that in exact similar case, the other vehicle that had also been subject matter to the similar confiscation has been released by order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh, dated 09.09.2014.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the proceedings for confiscation are independent of the criminal proceedings and in any case they are conducted independently and therefore the confiscation order does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders, it appears that while criminal prosecution is still pending against the petitioners, arising from the allegation of transportation of illicit liquor on 24.10.2013, bare perusal of the impugned order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh reveals that no option was given to the petitioners to pay in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle any amount by way of fine.

¶11

Otherwise, there does not appear any infirmity in the findings of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh as upheld by the Appellate

¶12

Court to the extent the petitioners has been held guilty at this stage for the purpose of the Act. At the same time by virtue of proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 72 of the Act. It was necessary for the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to have given an option to the petitioners to redeem his vehicle upon payment of confiscation fine as may have been determined by that authority.

¶13

By virtue of Section 72(8) read with Section 72(4)(c) of the Act, the confiscation proceedings may remain subject to the criminal trial. Thus, though there is no embargo on the confiscation of a vehicle during the pendency of the criminal trial, however, if the criminal trial results in acquittal it may have bearing on the confiscation proceedings as well.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted, had such option been given to the petitioners, they would have paid the fine subject to the outcome of the criminal trial.

¶15

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following terms:

¶16

(i) the orders dated 03.04.2014 and 23.03.2015 only insofar as they do not provide for an option to the petitioners to redeem the vehicle bearing registration no. U.P. 50 A 0001 are set aside;

¶17

(ii) to that limited extent, the matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to pass a fresh order quantifying the fine as per the market value of the vehicle existing today;

¶18

(iii) if the petitioners deposit that amount, the confiscation order may not arise and stand substituted by the amount of fine paid by the petitioners. The fine so paid may remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal trial.

¶19

The aforesaid exercise of determination of fine amount may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Abhilash

Jay Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vakilu Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balbir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravindra and 39 Others Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Noida and 03 Others

Imtiaz Ahmad Vs Divisional Commissioner, Basti and 2 Others

C.S. Infraconstruction Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer,Allahabad Zone, PWD and 2 Ors.

Shri Domai Vs Learned Prescribed Authority Payment of Wages/a.L.C.and 4 Ors.