On the admission stage of a criminal petition regarding seizure of a vehicle under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the single judge directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for interim custody. The criminal petition was subsequently 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2008 of 2015
ORDER:
Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, at the admission stage, the petition is ordered as follows:
It is seen that the offence alleged in this case is under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 1176 and the police have seized the vehicle and kept in the premises of Prohibition and Excise Station, Bhainsa, Adilabad District and it is subjected to speedy and natural decay.
Having regard to the fact that the offence alleged is under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and as per Section 46 of the Excise Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise is the competent authority to pass an order for confiscation/release and interim custody etc., the petitioner is directed to file a petition seeking interim custody of the property seized and the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise shall pass an order on merits thereon within one week from the date of filing of the petition before him.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
20-03-2015
eha
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRL.P. No. 2008 of 2015
Dt. 20.03.2015
eha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether, on the admission of a criminal petition alleging seizure of a vehicle under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the court should entertain interim custody proceedings?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
U Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
