This revision was dismissed primarily due to non-compliance with a previous order to file the order sheet of proceeding pending in the District Magistrate, Mathura court. Despite the merits suggesting the impugned order lacked error, procedural failure led to dismissal.
The criminal revision was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 98 of 2002
Revisionist :- Lokeshwar Dayal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Suneel Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None present in the revised list. Shri Ravi Kant Kushwaha and Shri Chavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.As are present.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that on 23.01.2002 this Court passed an order directing the learned counsel for the revisionist to file copy of the order sheet of the proceeding pending in the court of District Magistrate, Mathura.
It appears that, that order was not complied with and the order sheet has not been filed as yet. This revision is of the year 2002 and it is still awaiting admission.
For want of compliance of the order of this Court, the revision is liable to be dismissed on this very ground.
Considering on the basis of merits of the case, it appears that this revision has been filed against the order dated 14.01.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 289 of 2001 under Section 60, 72 and 73 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Narahauli, District Mathura by which the release order passed by C.J.M, Mathura by order dated 10.12.2001, in respect of a car TATA Indica bearing registration no. D.L-1 TJ/5283. The said order shows that a car was taken into possession along-with 125 bottles of foreign liquor under Sections 72, 73 Excise act and in respect of the said car, confiscation proceeding was initiated. It has been also mentioned in that order that earlier another motor vehicle was released and the same was subsequently found to be involved in the transportation of illegal liquor.
The learned Magistrate, however, released the said car in favour of the revisionist applicant. Against this release order, the revision was filed before Sessions Court and after hearing both the sides and considering the material on record, order of the learned Magistrate releasing the car dated 10.12.2001 was set aside and it was directed that the District Magistrate, Mathura shall conclude the confiscation proceeding by 14.03.2002. It was further directed that if the confiscation does not end by that
time, the revisionist will move the release application before the District Magistrate for release of the car, who will dispose of the same according to law.
The impugned order passed by the revisional court appears to be justified in view of law, as the C.J.M, Mathura was not supposed to release the car during pendency of confiscation proceeding. By the impugned order the revisional court has infact given an option to the revisionist and as such, opportunity to get the car released was provided to the revisionist with suitable directions to the District Magistrate, Mathura.
In view of the above, I find no material irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The revision lacks merit, hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 PS
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
