LexSTATE OF KERALA versus C.A. JABBAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ·k [2009] 7 S.C.R. 300 A STATE OF KERALA .... V. C.A. JABBAR Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2009 B MAY 1, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Abkari Act, Kera/a 1077 - ss. 678, E and F- Confiscation """'( c of vehicle - Direction for release of vehicle on furnishing of bank guarantee equal to value of vehicle by Assistant Excise Commissioner - Challenge to ....: High Court directing release of vehicle on executing a bond - On appeal, held: High Court should not have interfered with the matter when statutory remedies are provided and that too without giving any reason ~- D - However, vehicle has been released - Respondent to furnish bank guarantee in addition to execution of bond. ..... Respondent's vehicle was seized under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. :-le prayed for release of vehicle E but the same was rejected since the vehicle had been entrusted to the Assistant Excise Commissioner for confiscation. Assistant Excise Commissioner directed to respondent to furnish bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle as fixed. High Court held that the Assistant Excise Commissioner was to release the vehicle to the F respondent after ascertaining the ownership on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court G HELD: Section 67E of the Abkari Act deals with the appeal in respect of an order passed under section 678 lir, of the Act while section 67F refers to the power of revision in respect of an order under section 678 and 67E and can H 300 - , ... STATE OF KERALA V. C.A. JABBAR 301. be exercised on his own motion by the Commissioner. A Admittedly, the statutory remedies have not been availed. The High Court ought not to have interfered in a matter when statutory remedies are provided. Pursuant to the High Court's order the vehicle has been released. However, the direction for release or executing a bond B seems to be without any justification when Assistant Excise Commissioner had directed furnishing of the bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle. The High Court had not indicated any reason as to why that part of the order was interfered with. Hence, it is directed that in c addition to the personal bond executed for securing release of the vehicle, the respondent shall furnish bank ·guarantee for the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Assistant Excise Commissioner concerned. On failure to do so, the concerned official shall be free to cancel the 0 bond and to take possession of the vehicle in question. [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [303-F-H; 304-A-C] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 26.10.2006 of the E Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No. 3323 of 2006 P.V. Dinesh, for the Appellant. K. Rajeev, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. F G .rt 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Respondent had filed an application for release of Maruti Omni Van of which he claimed to be the owner. Learned Judicial First Class 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A Magistrate rejected the prayer for release in terms of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The vehicle was seized in terms of Section 55(a) of ·the Abkari Act. The appellant took the stand that the vehicle was stolen and the matter was reported to the police and on the 8 same day the vehicle was detected by the police. A case was registered under Section 55(a) of the Act against four accused persons. The application for release was rejected on the ground that the vehicle has been entrusted to the Assistant Excise Commissioner for the purpose of confiscation. The respondent c approached the Assistant Excise Commissioner and he was directed to furnish bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle as fixed by a Mechanical Engineer before the High Court. Appellant had questioned the order taking the stand that he was unable to raise the amount required for the bank 0 guarantee and, therefore, the vehicle should be released without any condition. The High Court held that in view of the factual scenario the Assistant Excise Commissioner, ldukki was to release the vehicle to the respondent after ascer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.