SHAIK GHANI Vs. STATE A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this court by his order dt.12-4-2006 having noticed the conflict that the judgment of this court in S.KAREEMULLA AND OTHERS V. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR, NANDYAL AND OTHERS 1996(1) ALT 953 runs contrary to later judgment of this court in M. BASHA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1997(2) ALD (CRL)473 (AP) with regard to release of the vehicle involved in an excise offence by the Magistrate, referred the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the reference may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner filed ,an application in Crl.M.P.No.453/2001 under Section 451 r/w 457(1) Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the jeep bearing registration No.AP 6174 before the trial court contending that he was falsely implicated in PR No.63 of 1998-99 and his jeep was illegally kept in the custody of the respondent without proper maintenance. The learned Magistrate relying upon a judgment of this court in K.KAREEMULLAH (1 supra) passed orders dt. 13-2-2001 releasing the vehicle to the petitioner for safe custody on condition that he should furnish a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, State preferred a revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.67/2001 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Learned Sessions Judge by his order dt. 11-10-2002 allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dt. 13-2-2001 in Crl.M.P.No.453/200. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition placed reliance on the judgment of this court in M.BASHA (2 supra) and held that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law since the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excisa passed orders confiscating the crime vehicle on 8-1-2001 itself and after which the petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that in case the vehicle had already been handed over to the petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate, it should be produced immediately before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise by the petitioner and failure to do so, necessary action as contemplated in law be taken against him.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record. In order to fully appreciate the submissions made at the Bar, it is necessary to examine the true purpose of Sections 13-E and 14 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, which read as under: