BIRENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned A.G.A. for the State respondents, and perused the record.

(2.) In the present case, an FIR was registered by the police on the complaint of Excise Inspector. Following the registration of the FIR, a huge quantity of illicit liquor and Rs.14,03,550.00 was recovered, and also a Mahindra Pick UP vehicle, bearing Registration No. UP-16-JT 5779, was seized. The owner of the vehicle filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, seeking release of the vehicle. Accordingly, a response was called from the District Magistrate, who responded by stating that since the matter is pending trial, the vehicle may not be released. Based on this response, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application for release of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the rejection order dtd. 10/5/2024, the applicant filed a Revision Petition bearing no.174 of 2024, before the learned District Judge, Aligarh. The counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon Prem Swamy v. State of Uttar Pradesh,Reported in 1997 Allahabad Criminal Cases (Suppl.) 99 and Dhirendra Singh Thapa v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2016. However, the learned District Judge distinguished the applicants' case from those cited cases, noting that the referred cases involved the seizure of vehicles under the NDPS Act, whereas the applicants' case involved a violation of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act and thereby rejected the revision petition.

(3.) The learned District Judge overlooked a well-known and widely referred judgment by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat,(2002) 10 SCC 283 which addresses the detailed procedure for release of vehicles and goods seized by investigating agencies. Instead, the learned District Judge decided the revision petition by distinguishing the petitioner's case from the case decided by the High Court in 1997. It is worth noting that in Prem Swamy's case (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the revision petition and directed the release of the seized vehicle on Supardari to the owner, in a case where the vehicle was confiscated in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.