DEEPAK SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come forward with a prayer that the proceedings concerning truck as well as the foreign liquor pending before the Collector Kanpur be quashed. THE applicant is the Managing Director of M/s. Sachdeva Roadlines (P) Ltd. Indore, doing transport business. Large number of crates of imported wine were being transported by the applicants' truck involved and the truck was detained at Kanpur and the police authorities seized the truck and the foreign liquor and a case under the Excise Act was launched. It would appear than the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate concerned for release of the property in applicants' favour. THE court passed an order dated 10-10-1984 to the effect that the consignment in question be released is favour of the applicant as custodian and carrier of the property on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount,

(2.) IT is being urged that as by this order the court held that the papers are in order and in the mind of the court there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the papers concerning the truck, the property has to be released. I may at the very out set observe that this order of the Magistrate is an interlocutory order. The criminal case is still pending and even the trial has not commenced. IT is argued that it is the order of the Magistrate, who would be holding the trial, which has to prevail and any proceedings before the Collector in respect of the property is a misnomer and cannot proceed. I may at this stage quote sub-clause (2) of Section 72 of the Act, as relied upon :-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the notice given by the Collector is confined to the truck and not to the liquor." It appears to be so but this point can well be raised before the Collector.