2019 (8) TMI 865 - SC - Indian Laws

Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to order vehicle confiscation under Excise Act, not bound by Criminal Procedure Code.

The court held that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to order the confiscation of vehicles under the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910, ... Confiscation of vehicle - illicit liquor - bore country made pistol - bore live cartridges - power on the authorised officers of the Excise Department and the competent Police Officers to investigate into the offences punishable under the Act - Sections 60 and 72 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 - Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - HELD THAT:- The confiscation of a vehicle found in illicit transportation of the liquor is an offence which can be investigated by an Excise Officer as well as by a Police Officer. But the exclusive power of confiscation is vested with the Collector in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act. The sale proceeds of seized things or Animal which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, if sold, are required to be paid to the person found entitled thereto in terms of sub-sections (4) and (8) of Section 72 of the Act - Sub-section (9) of Section 72 of the Act clarifies that no order of confiscation made by the Collector shall prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby may be liable under this Act. Thus, the punishment consequent to the prosecution is distinct from the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. The Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicles and in case the seized things are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, he may order to sell the same in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. Sub-section (4) deals with distribution of sale proceeds when the seized thing is sold which is subject to wear and tear and natural decay or when it is expedient in public interest to do so. Subsection (8) of Section 72 of the Act deals with a situation where a prosecution of an offence is instituted in relation to which confiscation was ordered, the thing or animal shall be disposed of subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Act in accordance with the order of the Court. The order of the Court in sub-section (8) of Section 72 of the Act is after conclusion of the prosecution which is different from the seized things which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. There is no error in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeal - Since the High Court has decided the matter only on the question of jurisdiction of the Collector to order confiscation, the matter is remitted back to the High Court to exercise power of judicial review over the order of confiscation passed by the Collector and as affirmed by the District Judge. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Collector to order confiscation of the vehicle.2. Applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provisions in the context of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910.3. Distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Collector to Order Confiscation of the Vehicle:The primary issue revolves around whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to order the confiscation of the vehicle involved in the transportation of illicit liquor. The appellant argued that only the Magistrate, who is competent to conduct the trial, has the authority to pass an order of confiscation upon completion of the trial. However, the court found that under Section 72(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910, the Collector has the power to order confiscation of such things or animals 'whether or not a prosecution for such offence has been instituted.' This indicates that the Collector’s power to confiscate is independent of the prosecution process. The court cited previous judgments, including Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Uday Singh, which support the view that confiscation proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecution and that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction over confiscation matters.2. Applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Provisions:The appellant contended that the provisions of the CrPC should apply, arguing that the Magistrate alone has the jurisdiction to release the vehicle. However, the court clarified that the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910, being a special and local Act, takes precedence over the CrPC in matters of confiscation. Section 5 of the CrPC saves special or local laws, and thus, the provisions of the Excise Act regarding confiscation supersede the CrPC provisions. The court referred to the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Narender, which held that special provisions in a statute regarding confiscation and disposal of property override the general provisions of the CrPC.3. Distinction Between Confiscation Proceedings and Criminal Prosecution:The court emphasized the distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution. Confiscation is an administrative action aimed at preventing the misuse of vehicles involved in the commission of offences, while criminal prosecution seeks to punish the offender. The court noted that the Collector’s power to confiscate is independent and does not affect the criminal proceedings. The court cited Uday Singh and Kallo Bai, which affirmed that confiscation proceedings are separate and parallel to criminal prosecution, each serving different purposes.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to order the confiscation of vehicles under the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. The provisions of the CrPC do not apply to confiscation proceedings under the Act. The court found no merit in the appellant’s arguments and upheld the High Court’s decision. The matter was remitted back to the High Court to exercise judicial review over the order of confiscation passed by the Collector and affirmed by the District Judge.