Allowed

Y.Govinda Reddy, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Telangana HC11 Feb 2011CRLRC/278/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision addressed the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to release seized stocks of jaggery and alum under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that Section 31 of the A.P. Prohibition Act overrides jurisdictional bars in the A.P. Excise Act, empowering the Magistrate to release seized properties with security.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate to release 10 bags of jaggery and one bag of alum seized in P.C.O.R.No.847/2010-11, conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing security of Rs.10,000 with one surety.

Y.Govinda Reddy, Vs The Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.278 OF 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Petitioner is the owner of 10 gunny bags of black jaggery (each weighing 50 kgs) and a bag containing 3 kgs of alum, which was seized in connection with P.C.O.R.No.847/2010-11 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1986. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, and filed an application in Crl.M.P.(SR).No.488 of 2011, under Section 457 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court below to release the said stocks to his custody. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by a docket order, dated 05.02.2011, stating that the said Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the said application as envisaged under Section 46-E of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The said docket order, dated 05.02.2011 is under challenge in this Revision.

¶4

Having regard to the judgments passed by this Court in P.Swarupa and others v. State of Andhra Prades h [1] , Jitendra Palnitker v. State of Andhra Prades h [2] and Sunderbhai Ambalal [3] Desai v. State of Gujarat , though Section 46-E of the A.P.Excise Act states that there is a bar of jurisdiction to entertain any application pertaining to release of the vehicle or stocks such as jaggery or alum, Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 has an overriding effect over the A.P. Excise Act. In the light of the said provision of law, it shall be held that the Magistrate is empowered to pass orders

¶5

under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. and release the vehicle or stocks such as Jaggery and alum by way of interim custody.

¶6

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the stage of admission, with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar to release 10 bags of black jaggery (each weighing 50 Kgs) and a bag containing 3 kgs of alum seized in connection with P.C.O.R.No.847/201011 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, on condition of the petitioner furnishing security for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar.

¶7

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶8

11^th February 20110 DR

¶9

[1] 1996(1) ALT Crl.130 [2] 1995(3) ald 80 [3] (2002) 10 scc 283

Y.Govinda Reddy, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Govinda Reddy, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurati Narayana, Vs Kurati Chennamma

V.Marie Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor

S.Mangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Kondal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akurathi Srinivasa Prakash Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor