Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6358 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Brief background of the case is that on 02.08.2006 vehicle of the
petitioner was recovered by the police at Tanakpur Road, Pilibhit. In
the said vehicle in question 320 bottles of wine were kept. In regard to
the said incident an F.I.R. had been lodged on 03.08.2006, and therein
charge sheet had been submitted against the petitioner and two
others. On 28.06.2007, the District Magistrate passed order to seize
the vehicle of the petitioner, and it was mentioned that the petitioner
could get his vehicle released by depositing a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- in
favour of the State Government. Against the said order, petitioner
preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by Additional District
Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit. Thereafter, on 23.07.2009, the petitioner
moved an application for release of the vehicle before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit . Said application was rejected. Revision
preferred against the said order has also been rejected. At this
juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contended with vehemence that in the present case, the petitioner is
registered owner of the vehicle in question , as such the same should
be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner , as such
necessary orders in this direction ought to have been passed by the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle, and in this
background, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the
other hand, contended that the vehicle of the petitioner has been
forfeited under the provisions of U.P. Excise Act and the order passed
in that regard has attained finality, and natural consequence is that the
vehicle has to be auctioned, as such in this background rightful
decision has been taken, which warrants no interference.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual aspect of the
matter is that the vehicle in question, i.e. Tata Safari, bearing
registration No.DL-IB-6798 was seized by the District Magistrate on
28.06.2007 and the order was passed that the said vehicle could be
got released by the petitioner on deposit of Rs.2,55,000/-. Admittedly,
the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner. The order of
forfeiture has attained finality and appeal against the same has been
dismissed. The fact of the matter is that once the order seizing vehicle
has attained finality , then the petitioner ceases to have any right to
the vehicle in question. In this background the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the revisional court have rightly refused to release the
-2-
vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner.
Consequently, writ petition, as has been framed and drawn, is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
SRY