COURT HAS GOT JURISDICTION TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN EXCISE OFFENCES =The issue involved in this revision is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in P.Swarupa v. State of A.P.[1], wherein, it has been held that though Section 46 E of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act states that there is a bar of jurisdiction to entertain any application pertaining to release of the vehicle, Section 31 of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 has an overriding effect over the 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 and release the vehicle by way of interim custody.

CRLRC 291 / 2013

CRLRCSR 4110 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RAMAVATH LATCHIRAM, NALGONDA DT.,  VSSHO, PROH.&EXCISE ST.,MACHERLA & 5 OTHRS., REP PP.,
PET.ADV. : SRINIVASA REDDYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  GUNTUR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Crl.R.C.No.291 of 2013


ORDER:-

This revision is directed against the Order dated 28.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2013 in P.R.No.338/2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Macherla on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under section 451 Cr.P.C.
2).      The petitioner is registered owner of Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 24 AK 6153.  The said vehicle came to be seized in connection with P.R.No.338 of 2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Macherla, registered for the offence under section 7-A read with 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act.
3).      The petitioner approached the Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, seeking release of the vehicle for interim custody by moving Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2013 under section 451 Cr.P.C.  The learned Junior Civil Judge by order, dated 28.01.2013, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Excise alone is competent to release the vehicle.  Hence, this revision.
4).      Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the order impugned in the revision.
5).      The issue involved  in this revision is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in P.Swarupa v. State of A.P.[1], wherein, it has been held that though Section 46 E of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act states that there is a bar of jurisdiction to entertain any application pertaining to release of the vehicle, Section 31 of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 has an overriding effect over the 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 and release the vehicle by way of interim custody.
6).      As on this day, no proceedings have been taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise for confiscation of the vehicle.  If the vehicle is allowed to be in the custody of the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Macherla, there is every likelihood of it’s value being deteriorated. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in this revision is set aside with a direction to the Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, to release the Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP24 AK 6153  to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following  conditions:-
(1)              The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)  with  two sureties for the like sum  to the satisfaction of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla;
(2)              The petitioner shall undertake to produce the Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP24 AK 6153 as and when required by the trial Court or by the authorities under the A.P.Prohibition Act;
(3)              The petitioner shall not alienate, mortgage, or alter the physical features of the Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP24 AK 6153;
(4)              The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purposes.

7.       Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.


____________________________

JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY


25th February, 2013
gm/vjl                                          


[1] 1996(1) ALT (Crl.) 130 (D.B.) (A.P.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.