5 March 2022 6:21 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per provisions of Section 72(7) of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, a Civil appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate would lie before the District Judge of the respective District.The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus in light of the notification issued in the year 1978 by the UP Government, wherein...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per provisions of Section 72(7) of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, a Civil appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate would lie before the District Judge of the respective District.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus in light of the notification issued in the year 1978 by the UP Government, wherein the appellate judicial authority appointed by the State Government is "District Judge", who has been designated to hear the appeal against the order made by the DM Concerned regarding the confiscation of a vehicle under the Act.
It may be noted that clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act provides that whenever an offence is punishable under the Act, every animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such receptacle or package shall be liable to confiscation.
Further, the power of confiscation of the vehicle has been given to the Collector of the District and sub-section 7 of Section 72 provides appeal against the order of confiscation under sub-section 2 or sub-section 6 of Section 72 to the 'Judicial Authority' as the Government may appoint.
Now, for the purpose of section 72(7) of the U.P. Excise Act, the UP Government vide its notification issued in the hear 1978, appointed "District Judge" as the Judicial authority.
The case in brief
The Court was hearing a 482 CrPC application filed by one Yashpal who sought the quashing of an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri whereby his application for release of a Vehicle had been rejected.
The rejection order stated that since the vehicle in question had been confiscated under the Excise Act by the order of District Magistrate in favor of the State, therefore, an application under Section t457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle was not maintainable.
Agreeing with the order of the Magistrate, the Court observed that the vehicle in question has already been confiscated by the District Magistrate under the Excise Act, therefore an appeal would lie before the District Judge and since, the applicant had not challenged the order of confiscation before the appellate judicial authority, therefore, the instant application was not liable to be entertained.
The Court also clarified that such an appeal should be regarded as Civil Appeal (not Criminal) and is required to be decided by the District Judge himself. With this, the Court dismissed the instant plea.
Case title - Yashpal v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Click Here To Read/Download Order