2020 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, Mau in Civil Appeal No. 41 2018 (Surendra Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P.). Further prayer has been made that the District Magistrate, District- Mau be directed to release the Vehicle No. U.P. 65FT / 3787 in favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner's vehicle was allegedly carrying five plastic drums of illicit adulterated liquor a First Information Report was lodged by the Police Station- Saraylakhansi, District Mau, U.P., under Sections 307, 272, 373, 504 IPC read with Sections 60/62 of the U.P. Excise Act and under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was also sent to the petitioner on 24.4.2018 asking him to explain as to why his vehi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thority could have chosen not to exercise that power at all and submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the Police Station where it would become a junk. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the vehicle was definitely used for carrying of the illicit adulterated liquor and, therefore, rightly the orders were passed confiscating the vehicle. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned cannot be sustained and, therefore, the orders dated 16.7.2018 passed by the Collector and the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the District Judge Mau are being quashed. This Court upon entertaining the instant writ p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orm as to how without complying with the provisions of Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the vehicle had been confiscated, the matter was finally heard. The record does not reveal that any point of time, the petitioner was given any opportunity to get his vehicle released in lieu of fine etc. Further the Court finds that the authorities had not arrived at any finding that the owner knew or had reason to believe that the vehicle was likely to be used for transporting illicit material. Further, this Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by seizing the vehicle and keeping it in the Police Station for a very long time. This has also been held by the Supreme Court in 2002(10) SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal De....