MUSTAFA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 20-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
MUSTAFA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6438 of 2019)
AUGUST 20, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 – ss. 60 and 72 –
Jurisdiction of Collector to order confiscation of vehicle – A FIR
was registered for offences u/ss.60 & 72 of the Act and ss.420,
467, 468 and 471 of IPC in respect of seizure of 154 cartons of
illicit liquor, one 0.315 bore country made pistol with two 0.315
bore live cartridges, by a team of Excise Department and the police
officials – A notice was served upon the appellant by the District
Magistrate, who was also the Collector of the district to show cause
as to why the seized truck be not confiscated – Pursuant thereto,
the District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation and auction
of vehicle – Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal before the District
Judge, which was dismissed – Challenge to the said order before
the High Court was also unsuccessful – On appeal before the Supreme
Court, the appellant contended that since FIR was registered in
respect of transportation of illicit liquor, therefore, the Magistrate
who is competent to conduct trial alone was competent to pass an
order of release of vehicle – It was further contended that it is on
completion of the trial; the Magistarte would pass an order of
confiscation of the vehicle – Thus, Collector had no jurisdiction to
pass an order of confiscation of the vehicle – Held: The confiscation
of the vehicle found in illicit transportation of the liquor is an offence
which can be investigated by an Excise officer as well as by a police
officer – But, sub-section (2) of s.72 of the Act confers power upon
the collector to order confiscation of such thing or animal ‘whether
or not a prosecution for such offence has been instituted’ –
Therefore, the power of the Collector to confiscate the seized thing
or animal is independent of prosecution – Also, the proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 72 of the Act gives an option to the owner to
pay such fine as the Collector thinks adequate not exceeding its
market value in lieu of its confiscation – It, thus, transpires that it is
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 754
754
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
the Collector who has been conferred exclusive jurisdiction to order
confiscation of a thing or animal – Further, the criminal court before
whom the prosecution is lodged, will not have jurisdiction to release
anything or animal whether interim or final as the Act in question
has provisions contrary to the provisions contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure – In view thereof, there is no error in the order
passed by the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector
to order confiscation – However, matter remitted back to the High
Court to exercise the power of judicial review over the order of
confiscation passed by the Collector and affirmed by the District
Judge.
United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – Procedure of confiscation of vehicle – Held:
The offences under the Act in terms of sub-section (2) of  s. 4 of the
Code are to be dealt with according to the provisions of the Code
but subject to the provisions of the Act, 1910 regulating the manner
or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or dealing with such
offences – Since the procedure of confiscation of the vehicle is
prescribed under the Act, 1910 it is the provision of the Act which
will be applicable and not Chapter XXXIV of the Code – S. 5 of the
Code saves special or local laws or any special jurisdiction or power
conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any
other law for the time being in force.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 72 of
the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 gives an option to the
owner to pay such fine as the Collector thinks adequate not
exceeding its market value in lieu of its confiscation.  It, thus,
transpires that it is the Collector who has been conferred exclusive
jurisdiction to order confiscation of a thing or animal.  The
Collector has been further empowered to impose fine not
exceeding the market value of the thing on the date of seizure.
Thus, the power of confiscation of a vehicle or a thing is absolutely
vested with the Collector except in certain circumstances, instead
of confiscation, the fine, not exceeding the market value, can
also be imposed but by the Collector alone. [Para 16] [768-D-E]
MUSTA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.