Allowed

Trilok Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Aug 2021C482/495/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed an order regarding the confiscation of a truck used to transport illicit liquor. The Court directed the District Magistrate to consider releasing the vehicle to its owner, relying on Supreme Court precedent that seized vehicles should not remain idle for long periods and citing the Excise Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.09.2019 is quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to consider the petitioner's case for the release of his vehicle within four weeks.

Trilok Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Crl. Misc. Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 495 of 2020

¶3

Trilok Singh ………….......Applicant

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and others …………...Respondents

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble N.S.Dhanik.J. (Oral)

¶9

By means of present C-482 Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Case No. 43 of 2019 (Crime No. 49 of 2018-19), under Sections 60/72 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) , Police Station Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh. Further prayer is made to direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner having registration no. UK07-CA 7222 in terms and conditions, which this Court deems fit and proper.

¶10

Heard leaned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Petitioner is the owner of truck no. UK07-CA 7222. On 28.10.2018, the said truck was seized with the allegation that illicit liquor was being transported on forged documents. Pursuant thereto, criminal proceedings were launched against the accused persons including the petitioner. In addition, respondent no.2 also recommended for the confiscation of the aforementioned truck of the petitioner in terms of Section 72(2) of the Act.

¶12

¶13

Section 72 (2) of the Uttarakhand (the U.P. Excise Act, 1910) (Amendment) Act, 2019, reads as follows:

¶14

“ "(2) Where anything or animal is seized under any provision of this Act, and the officer seizing and detaining such property shall, within three working days from the date of such seizure and detention; produce a detailed report for confiscation along with such seized property, seizure memo and other reliant documents before the Collector. The Collector shall upon receiving the said report along with seizure memo seized property, immediately order for safe custody and storage of goods as he may deem fit. The Collector, if satisfied for reasons to be recorded that an offence has been committed due to which such thing or animal has become liable to confiscation under sub-section (1), he may order confiscation of such thing or animal whether or not a prosecution for such offence has been instituted: Provided that in the case of anything (except an intoxicant) or animal "referred to in sub-section (1), the owner thereof shall be given an option to pay in lieu of its confiscation such fine as the Collector thinks adequate not exceeding its market value on the date of its seizure.".

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed without considering the above legal proposition. It is undisputed that the confiscation proceedings are still pending and meanwhile the petitioner has also been exonerated by the investigating agency.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s vehicle has been kept idle since long resulting in wear and tear of the vehicle. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner earns his livelihood

¶17

¶18

from the said truck and keeping the same seized for a long time would result in irreparable loss to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 2002 (8) Supreme 525 , in which, Hon’ble Apex Court has held, as under:

¶20

“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶21

In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

¶22

It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate is the sole authority under the Act to pass an order for confiscation or release of vehicle so seized under the Act.

¶23

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts that & circumstances of the case and legal proposition cited above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the Collector, Pithoragarh is quashed. The District Magistrate concerned is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for release of his aforementioned vehicle in accordance with law and ratio held in para 17 & 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) and the above provisions of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶25

(N.S.Dhanik, J.) 09.08.2021

¶26

Kaushal

Trilok Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilok Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Sukhvinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kasim Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashok Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lalit Mohan Vs Ashok Kumar Verma

Rohit Vs State of Uttarakhand

Alok Dubey Vs State of Uttarakhand