NARAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 10/4/1985 passed by the sessions Judge, Mirzapur rejecting the appeal against the order dated 4/1/1985 refusing to release the Car No. U.P.L. 3552 in favour of the applicant.

(2.) The brief account of the events leading to the present application is that Mool Chand and three others were challaned under section 60 of the U.P Excise Act (for short the Act) for carrying illicit liquor in 334 bottles and six bladders in the car in question belonging to the applicant, who was not made accused in that case. Mool Chand and others were convicted under section 60 of the Excise Act by the Magistrate by order dated 19/6/1984 and the car of the applicant was also confiscated. Even though motive or knowledge was attributed to the applicant nor he was made an accused, his application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and thereafter his appeal failed, against these orders the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant urged that as the applicant was not made a party to the proceedings under section. 60 of the Act nor he was made an accused nor he had any, knowledge about the offence being committed under section 60 of the Act and, as such in view of section 12-A (8) of the Act the application of the applicant for release of the vehicle can be allowed. Further the car was not produced in any criminal court in the enquiry or trial and the car must have been delivered to the applicant as he was entitled to possession thereof as required by section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code). Reliance was placed on Satpal v. State of Haryana, Ved Prakash of U.P., Smt. Champa Devi v. State, and K.L. Subbyya v. State of Karnataka. The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders.