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 subsection (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 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]
2. Sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act is exception to sub-section (2) wherein, on receiving report of seizure or on inspection of the seized things, including any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance, which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay or it is expedient in public interest to do so, the Collector may order such things or animal, except an intoxicant, to be sold by auction or otherwise. Therefore, in case any seized thing is subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, the Collector is empowered to sell the same by public auction. The power to sell the thing or animal pending confiscation proceedings is also contemplated if it is expedient in public interest to do so. Such provision empowers the Collector to order the sale of the vehicle or animal if he is satisfied that it is expedient in public interest even before an order of confiscation is passed by him. [Para 17] [768-F-G]
3. In terms of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 trial of offences under IPC are to be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. It further provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. The offences under the Act in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code are to be dealt with according to the provisions of the Code but subject to the provisions of the Act 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, it is the provision of the Act which will be applicable and not Chapter XXXIV of the Code. Section 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. [Para 21] [769-G-H; 770-A-B]
4. The confiscation of a 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 the exclusive power of confiscation is vested with the Collector in terms of sub-section
(2) of Section 72 of the Act. The sale proceeds of seized things or Animal which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, if sold, are required to be paid to the person found entitled thereto in terms of sub-sections (4) and (8) of Section 72 of the Act. [Para 26] [771-G-H; 772-A]
5. Sub-section (9) of Section 72 of the Act clarifies that no order of confiscation made by the Collector shall prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby may be liable under this Act. Thus, the punishment consequent to the prosecution is distinct from the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. [Para 27] [772-B]
6. After examining the provisions of the Act, this Court holds that the Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicles and in case the seized things are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay, he may order to sell the same in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. Sub-section (4) deals with distribution of sale proceeds when the seized thing is sold which is subject to wear and tear and natural decay or when it is expedient in public interest to do so. Sub-section (8) of Section 72 of the Act deals with a situation where a prosecution of an offence is instituted in relation to which confiscation was ordered, the thing or animal shall be disposed of subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Act in accordance with the order of the Court. The order of the Court in sub-section (8) of Section 72 of the Act is after conclusion of the prosecution which is different from the seized things which are subject to speedy wear and tear or natural decay as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. [Para 30] [772-H; 773-A-C]
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 183 : [2015] 14 SCR 1037 ; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Narender (2014) 13 SCC 100 :
[2014] 1 SCR 109 ; State of Karnataka v. K. A.
Kunchindammed (2002) 9 SCC 90 : [2002] 3 SCR 162 – relied on.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Madhukar Rao
(2008) 14 SCC 624 : [2008] 1 SCR 413 – held
inapplicable.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh AIR 2019 SC 1597 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Kallo Bai (2017) 14 SCC 502 ; Divisional Forest Officer and Another v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao and Others (1985) 4 SCC 573 : [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 680 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.