Special statutory appeal against confiscation bars recourse to inherent criminal jurisdiction for vehicle release.

Where the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 provides a specific appeal against confiscation of a conveyance under Section 72(7), the inherent criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable for seeking release of the same vehicle. A conveyance used to carry excise contraband is liable to confiscation under Section 72(1)(e), and the prescribed appellate forum is the District Judge by way of civil appeal. Because the vehicle had already been confiscated and the statutory appeal was not pursued, the High Court treated the special remedy as sufficient and declined recourse to Section 482.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for release of a vehicle was maintainable when the vehicle had already been confiscated under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and an appellate remedy under Section 72(7) was available before the District Judge.

Analysis: Section 72(1)(e) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 makes a conveyance used in carrying excise contraband liable to confiscation, and Section 72(7) provides a specific appeal against an order of confiscation. The appointed appellate authority for the purposes of Section 72(7) is the District Judge, and the remedy is a civil appeal. Since the vehicle had already been confiscated by the District Magistrate and the applicant had not challenged that order before the prescribed appellate forum, the statutory remedy was available and had to be pursued.

Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a specific appellate remedy against an order of confiscation, recourse to the inherent criminal jurisdiction for the same relief is not maintainable.

---