Allowed

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Telangana HC23 Feb 2011CRLRC/400/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Revision Court allowed the petition, holding that the Magistrate is empowered under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 to release seized stocks via Section 457 Cr.P.C. The release was conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing security and surety.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Magistrate to release 40 gunny bags of black jaggery and a bag of alum, conditioned on the petitioner furnishing security of Rs.75,000/- with one surety for the like sum.

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, Vs The Deputy… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.400 OF 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Petitioner is the owner of 2000 kgs of black jaggery in 40 gunny bags (each weighing 50 kgs) and a bag containing 10 kgs of alum, which was seized in connection with P.R.No.1388/2010-11 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Khammam, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1986. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition and Excise Cases) at Khammam, and filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.476 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.

¶5

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 [3] Sunderbhai Ambalal 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,

¶6

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

¶7

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the stage of admission, with a direction to the learned (Prohibition and Excise Cases) at Khammam to release 40 gunny bags of black jaggery (each weighing 50 Kgs) and a bag containing 10 kgs of alum seized in connection with P.R.No.1388/2010-11 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Khammam, on condition of the petitioner furnishing security for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition and Excise Cases) at Khammam.

¶8

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶9

23^rd February 20110 DR

¶10

[1] 1996(1) ALT Crl.130 [2] 1995(3) ald 80

¶11

[3] (2002) 10 scc 283

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, 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

G. Sridhar Reddy, Vs S.Vijayakumar Reddy

Bachu Baskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vungarala Satyanarayana Murthy Naidu, Vs Vungarala Narayana Murthy Naidu

Repaka Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Suresh Kirana, and Jaggery Merchants, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise Cases

Vuba Nagamani, Wengala Nagamani Vs Vuba Atchayya