STATE (NCT OF DELHI) versus NARENDER

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 06-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 109 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
v. 
NARENDER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014) 
JANUARY 06, 2014. 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Delhi Excise Act, 2009: 
s.61 rlw ss.58,59 and 60 - Vehicle used in commission 
of offence under the Act - Seized - Released by High Court 
exercising powers uls 451 of the Code - Held: The general 
i provisions of s. 451 of the Code have to yield where a statute 
A 
B 
c 
makes a special provision with regard to confiscation and 0 
. disposal of the property- s. 61 of the Act with its non-obstante 
clause, puts an embargo on jurisdiction of courts to make any 
! order with regard to the property used in committing any 
, offence and seized under the Act- Therefore, ss.451, 452 and 
457 of the Code must yield to the provisions of the Act; and 
E . 
Magistrate or High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure 
. of vehicle under the Act, has no power to pass an order for 
interim custody of such vehicle on security or for its release 
- Under the Act, the vehicle seized has to be produced before 
Deputy Commissioner, who has been conferred with the power 
F 
of its confiscation or release -
High Court exceeded in its 
jurisdiction in directing release of the vehicle on security -
Impugned order of High Court is set aside - Code of Criminal 
'Procedure, 1973 - ss.451, 452 and 457. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Non-obstante clause in a statute - General provisions 
and special provision - Interpretation of 
109 
G 
H 
11 O 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
An FIR for offences u/ss 33(a) and 58 of the Delhi 
excise Act, 2009 was registered, as 47 cartons of 
unauthorized liquor were found inside a vehicle. The 
respondent's application for release of the vehicle was 
rejected by the Magistrate. However, the High Court 
B allowed his petition under s.482 of the Code and directed 
the vehicle to be released on furnishing security. 
The State filed the instant appeal contending that in 
view of the embargo put by s.61 of the Delhi Excise Act, 
C the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for 
release of the vehic:le. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 33(a) of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 
0 makes it evident that transportation of any intoxicant in 
contravention of the provisions of the Act or of any rule 
or order made or notification issued or any licence, permit 
or pass, is punishable and any vehicle used for carrying 
the same, is liable for confiscation u/s 58(d) of the Act. 
E Section 59 of the Act deals with the power of 
confiscation of Deputy Commissioner in certain cases. 
Under the scheme of the Act any vehicle used for carrying 
the intoxicant is liable to be confiscated and on seizure 
of such vehicle, the same is required to be produced 
before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has been 
F conferred with the power of its confiscation. [para 8J [115-
E-F, G-H; 116-AJ 
1.2. Section 61 of the Act puts an embargo on 
jurisdiction of courts !aying down that notwithstanding 
G anything contrary contained in any other law for the time 
being in force, no court shall have jurisdiction to make 
any order with regard to the property used in committing 
any offence and seized under the Act. [para 9-1 OJ [116-
A-B, DJ 
H 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. NARENDER 
111 
1.3. In the instant case, the High Court, while A 
releasing the vehicle on security has exercised its power 
u/s 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The 
general provision of sA51_ of the Code with regard to the 
custody and disposal of the property or for that matter 
by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person 
B 
entitled to possession thereof u/s 452 of the Code or that 
of s.457 authorising a Magistrate to make an order for 
disposal of property, if seized by an officer and not 
produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or 
trial, however, has to yield where a statute makes a C 
special provision with regard to its confiscation and 
disposal. [para 11] [116-E, G-H; 117-A-B] 
1.4. From the scheme of the Act it is evident that the 
vehicle seized has to be produced before the Deputy 
Commissioner, who in turn has been conferred with the D 
power of its confiscation or release to its rightful owner. 
The requirement of production of seized property before 
the - D~puty Commissioner u/s 59(1) of the Act is, 
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, 
and, so also is the power of confiscation. In the instant E. 
case, the Leg

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