PREM NATH ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradoon dated 29-6-82, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1981 preferred by the applicant-revisionist. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradoon dated 20-10-1981 in which the accused applicant was acquitted. The seized properties namely, car and contraband articles were confiscated.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 3-03-1979 the Excise Inspector along with other persons on duty stopped one Ambassador Car No. USK 6970 at about 4 A.M.One Sardar was driving the car, he left the car and ran away. On search four boxes and one gunny bag having Aristocrat Whisky bottles of different sizes were recovered. Charge-sheet was submitted and trial was held. The learned Munsif Magistrate, Dehradoon acquitted the accused on the ground that they were not found in possession of the recovered contraband articles. While passing the judgment it was ordered that the contraband whiskies would be disposed of according to law after the appeal period is over. He has also cancelled the superdaginama of the said car executed by one Smt. Modi Arora wife of the applicant. While passing the judgment he made observation that the concerned authority may start proceeding under Section 72 of the U.P.Excise Act if they so desire and in that case they may issue further order of confiscation of the said property. Learned counsel has submitted that confiscation of the property covered under the Excise Act can be made under Section 72 of the U.P.Excise Act wherein it has been provided that such confiscation proceeding shall start when an offence punishable under this Section has been committed. He has submitted that since the appellant has been acquitted no confiscation proceeding can be started under the provisions of Section 72 of the U.P.Excise Act 1910.

(3.) The said matter was taken up and considered by the learned appellate court who held that since the appellant did not claim the properties during trial those articles cannot be returned to him. In this connection learned counsel has referred the case of Sri Narain v. State of U.P., 1987 ACC 421, but the said case does not seem to be applicable as because in that case no notice under Section 72(5) of the U.P.Excise Act was issued to the aggrieved party in the Confiscation proceeding.